Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAn Economic Development Plan for the City of Ithaca - A Program for Action AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
THE CITY OF ITHACA
A PROGRAM FOR ACTION
Prepared for the City of Ithaca by:
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
m' 310 West State Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
With the assistance of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development staff
September 1998
(Accepted by Common Council March 5, 2003)
Economic Development Plan
City of Ithaca, New York
Alan J. Cohen - Mayor
With special thanks to members of the Economic Development Plan Advisory Committee:
David Sprague—Chairperson, Sprague & Janowsky, Ithaca, N.Y.
Martha Armstrong—Tompkins County Area Development, Ithaca, N.Y.
Barbara Blanchard—Tompkins County Board of Representatives, Ithaca,N.Y.
Susan Blumenthal—Common Council, City of Ithaca
Scott Dagenais—M&T Bank, Ithaca,N.Y.
David Kay—Planning and Development Board, City of Ithaca
Bill Myers—Alternatives Federal Credit Union, Ithaca,N.Y.
Tom Niederkorn—Planning/Environmental Research Consultants, Ithaca,N.Y.
John Novarr—Novarr-Mackesey Development Company, Ithaca,NY
Megan Shay—Evaporated Metals Films (EMF), Ithaca,N.Y.
Martin Violette—Conservation Advisory Council, City of Ithaca
Cal Walker—Assistant Director in the Learning Strategies Center, Ithaca,NY
H. Matthys Van Cort-Director of Planning &Development, City of Ithaca
Jeannie Lee—Economic Development Planner, City of Ithaca
Consultant.
Tom Niederkorn—Planning/Environmental Research Consultants, Ithaca,N.Y.
Other Staff.•
Jennifer Kusznir-Economic Development Planner, City of Ithaca
Douglas McDonald-Director of Economic Development, City of Ithaca
AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ITHACA
A PROGRAM FOR ACTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. INTRODUCTION
PartI ............................................................................................................... 1
PartII.............................................................................................................. 6
Section2. HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................................... 8
Section 3. CONDITIONS AND TRENDS.................................................................... 11
Section 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY................................................. 19
Growth:
Policy, Objectives, Actions, Responsibility, Priorities
Intermunicipal Relations:
Policy, Objectives, Actions, Responsibility, Priorities
Section 5. SITE ANALYSIS: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS................26
**********************
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Evaluation Areas
Appendix B Assessment of Existing Development Regulations:
Zoning, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, Subdivisions
Appendix C Intermunicipal Cooperation: One Model
Appendix D Summary of Alternative Development Strategies
Appendix E Summary of Small Group Discussions
Appendix F Advisory Committee Value Scan
Appendix G Summary of Material Reviewed for Report
Appendix H Economic Development Forum
SECTION 1.
INTRODUCTION—Part I
Work on a plan for economic development in the City of Ithaca began in early September 1996.
At that time, an Economic Development Forum was convened to provide insight and guidance
on the city's economy. Seventy-five people who lived or worked in the Ithaca area were asked
to help with the formulation of goals and objectives for the city's economic future. (The list of
the participants and the forum topic and conclusions can be found in Appendix H.) After several
meetings of the Forum, it was recognized that a comprehensive effort on a larger scale was
needed to improve the local economy and provide more and better job opportunities for all
residents. Ithaca was but one part of a larger economic unit that included adjacent
municipalities, all of Tompkins County and the nearby region.
To further its original economic development initiative, Common Council funded a study to
develop specific city-oriented strategies that could be incorporated into a countywide plan. At
the county level, the Board of Representatives commissioned the preparation of a strategic plan
for economic development that addresses many of the issues identified in the economic forum,
designating Tompkins County Area Development(TCAD)as the project leader and coordinator.
City and TCAD/County efforts have been closely coordinated. The city's plan,as set forth in this
report, as well as a number of sector-specific plans addressing broad issues such as farmland
preservation and work force development, will become building blocks of a countywide
economic plan and development strategy.
An 11-member Economic Development Advisory Committee was appointed to assist in the
preparation of the city's economic development plan by providing direction,reacting to material
presented and making recommendations to the Mayor and Council, as appropriate. Members of
the committee were selected to bring a diversity of thoughts and opinions to the table; they
represented local business, industry, development, banking,public agencies and the community
at large.
As the older urban core and population center, the City of Ithaca faces many of the same
economic concerns as other communities in Tompkins County. Unlike these other communities,
however, the city must address a number of additional economic issues of great importance
including:
The need to maintain a wide range of community services,
A large and growing municipal budget,
An eroding property tax base that increasingly fails to keep pace with the cost of government,
An enormous amount of tax-exempt property,
An expensive and aging infrastructure, and
Older commercial buildings that reflect the economy of an earlier era.
i
Clearly,the city has an urgent and growing need to be as competitive as other communities in
the county and region for a share of new economic development.
Over time, Ithaca's economic condition has been significantly influenced by a number of
intricately interconnected variables including national, state, regional and county economies,
Cornell University and Ithaca College policies, infrastructure systems, demographic trends and
public attitudes. These dynamics are all active today. While some are beyond local control,
others can be shaped to be either positive or negative forces. `'
Information and recommendations on the following pages provide a basic component of the city's
current response to the challenge of improving the local economy. As a plan, this study has '
several dimensions ranging from the establishment of overall policy to identification and analysis
of development opportunities for specific sites. It is the culmination of 10 months of
concentrated effort under the leadership of the Advisory Committee, broadened by outreach to
groups and individuals that could bring insight and informed community opinion to the project.
Economic activity in the city is complex and widespread encompassing several distinct and
unique development areas. By intent,the focus of this plan has been limited largely to one of
these; an irregular area lying between Route 13 and the Flood Control Channel and stretching
from Newman Golf Course on the north to the south city line on Elmira Road. There are roughly
630 acres in this study area, or approximately 20%of all the land in the city. It contains much
of the city's existing commercial and industrial land use and most of the land that has good »
development potential. M
In addition, several smaller isolated sites have been included in the study: "Gun-Shop" Hill,the
former Wilcox Press building and the Morse Building, which is part of the Emerson complex ;
on South Hill sometimes referred to as Building 24.
West State Street between The Commons and Meadow Street-- a subsection of the main study
area--was not investigated in detail as a part of this study because it is essentially built up and
large-scale development opportunities are limited. Even so,construction of the County's Human
Services Building on West State Street, combined with pending street improvements and
landscaping, should stimulate additional private-sector improvements. While some new
development is anticipated in the West State Street area,it is likely that most future changes will
involve rehabilitation of existing structures,some rebuilding or infill on individual small lots and
rear yard development.
2
Two other subsections within the overall study area have received a considerable amount of
attention and study recently. For this reason, they were also not investigated as a part of this
study. These subsections are:
The Fulton/Meadow Corridor Area
Because of major street improvements and traffic movement changes in the West
End, the Fulton/Meadow corridors have assumed a high level of importance in
future West End land use patterns. The seven blocks bounded by Fulton and
Meadow Streets have been the subject of a recent intensive study by the city's
Department of Planning and Development and a draft plan for expected new
development in this area has been completed and presented to City Council for
review and public comment. The West End Urban Design Plan is consistent with
the conclusions and recommendations of this economic study.
Inlet Island
An Inlet Island Urban Design Plan for future land use and development in an
area that lies between the Inlet and flood channel, north of West State Street,has
also been completed recently and was adopted by the Common Council on
November 4, 1998. Guidelines for achieving the desired physical character of
this area, including detailed construction and landscaping proposals have been
presented and now await official action by the city. Recommendations in both
the West End Urban Design Plan and the Inlet Island Urban Design Plan are
viewed as supporting components of this economic study.
It is fully recognized and understood that a plan for future economic activity in the city is not
limited to the areas examined on the following pages of this report. Two vital components of
the city's economy, which were not included in this study -- Collegetown and the
Downtown/Commons -- are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
Collegetown
Collegetown has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years and is,
in essence, a discreet economic entity with tremendous built-in vitality. At this
time, and for the foreseeable future, the viability of Collegetown is believed to
be solid. The city periodically looks for ways to improve the ambience and
efficiency of Collegetown but substantive changes in policy for this area are not
anticipated.
3
i
Downtown and The Commons
Ithaca's traditional Central Business District (CBD) has been a strong focus of
city interest and concern for many years. This area, including The Commons and
surrounding blocks, has been in a state of flux and is changing in character. At
issue are questions of market niche, attracting new commercial ventures,
renovation and use of upper floors, facade improvement and broad-based
promotion and marketing. It is clear that the historic role of the CBD is
undergoing significant change. `
The Ithaca Downtown Partnership (IDP) was created specifically to address
downtown revitalization. The city has been working closely with the IDP on a "
number of initiatives such as code regulations for upper-story development,
potential funding sources for facade improvements and possible uses of the
community development revolving loan fund. In addition,the current Mayor and
Common Council adopted the Downtown Design Plan on April 2, 1997. This
Plan provides a series of design strategies to 'proactively guide the development
of(Ithaca's) downtown.' The Commons Design Review Committee, appointed
by the Mayor,has been working since January 1998 on the task of making design
recommendations for physical revitalization of The Commons. The committee's �-
report, published in 1999, makes several recommendations regarding but not
limited to lighting, landscaping, street furniture, and signage, as well as
connectivity to The Commons from nearby downtown locations. These efforts
are aimed at strengthening downtown's commercial viability and are considered
an integral but independent part of this economic plan.
Sections 2 and 3 contain a brief summary of findings followed by a presentation of statistical
information that illustrates and describes the city's current economic condition and concerns for
the future. Most important to this report is Section 4 on Economic Development Policy. This
section contains recommended city policy for the primary economic development issues of
growth and intermunicipal relations. Specifications needed to implement each policy are set
forth along with the identification of agency or department responsibilities for taking those
actions and a suggested timetable for implementation.
Section 5 contains a summary of suggestions for the future use of 14 sites in the study area that
appear to have good potential for a higher level of development. A number of possible uses for
each site are identified and the use that seems most likely or appropriate is recommended. A full
analysis of these sites is included in the appendix.
4
Extensive appendices supplement this report including:
The detailed site analyses and evaluations mentioned above,
A review of and recommendations for possible modifications to the city's
development regulations (zoning, environmental review, site development
plan review and subdivision regulations),
A model for intermunicipal cooperation,
Alternative policy statements considered by the Advisory Committee that led to
the final policy recommendations, and
Additional information considered as the study progressed.
Although the creation of new employment opportunities and the provision of training programs
are an important component of a comprehensive economic development program,they are not
included in this plan. Both of these issues are addressed in the recently published Economic
Development Strategy for Tompkins County.
Completion of this economic development study for the City of Ithaca, as part of an overall plan
for sustained economic growth in Tompkins County, signifies a renewed interest in the economic
well being of the City. There are substantial opportunities to increase the tax base, create
additional jobs, safeguard important environmental features and generally enhance the quality
of life in Ithaca's local neighborhoods, a quality that is prized by local residents. There is also
long range potential for creative partnerships that can preserve the autonomy of local
governments, increase efficiency and enable the beneficial sharing of future economic growth
that is possible throughout Tompkins County. The present economic development plan becomes
a basic component of the city's overall comprehensive plan.
September 1998
Tom Niederkorn
Planning/Environmental Research Consultants (PERC)
Ithaca,New York
5
INTRODUCTION—Part II*
The City of Ithaca seeks growth that maintains the City's character and preserves the quality of
life of its residents. Along with conventional economic development strategies, creative and
innovative development should be pursued -- where new ideas and alternative economic
development strategies are encouraged through the initiatives of the City's staff, elected officials,
business communities, and concerned citizenry. This "culture of innovation" has allowed the
City of Ithaca to serve as the birthplace of a variety of alternative economic endeavors.
Enlivened by the reputation for bold and creative development, the City of Ithaca wishes to
continue to encourage a climate in which new and innovative economic activities can flourish.
In an age and society when economic base is increasingly dependent upon the growth of
electronic enterprise, the City of Ithaca recognizes the desirability of fostering and promoting
cyber commerce throughout the area. The City encourages the growth of jobs in the high
technology sector generally and in electronic commerce particularly. It promotes these
businesses by maintaining a regulatory environment in which start-ups and small companies can
find a home.
One means by which Ithaca can achieve this goal is through its zoning ordinance. Currently the
ordinance allows home occupations as-of-right in most zones. The City should investigate
whether the provisions for home occupations in the zoning ordinance could be expanded so as
to encourage the establishment of electronic commerce and other related businesses while
protecting the quality of life in its residential neighborhoods. :•.
It is important to recognize that, as this plan was written at a specific point in time, its authors
may not have anticipated and addressed questions that may arise with regard to development
initiatives taking place at some time in the future. The intent of the Economic Development Plan
for the City of Ithaca is to serve as a general framework for development. Although the
Economic Development Plan focuses on the Route 13 corridor as the main location for new
development to occur, this in no way diminishes the City's continuing encouragement of
economic growth in Ithaca's Central Business District. The City's commitment to its downtown
is clearly expressed by the Common Council's recent endorsement of the Downtown Ithaca
Development Strategy, which outlines speccific goals for economic development in the City of
Ithaca's downtown core and by its sup rt of currently proposed downtown development
projects (Ciminelli/Cornell Office Building, Cayuga Green, the Intermodal Transportation
Center). M
*Following completion of a first draft in 1998,the economic Development Plan for the City of Ithaca was reviewed
by city staff,appointed boards,elected officials and members of the public. In accordance with comments received,
the draft was modified and reprinted in September of 1999. A public hearing on the plan was advertised and
conducted in February of 2001. The introduction to this plan was revised in May of 2002,after circulation of the
second draft. The revisions were made in response to further comments received from members of City boards
(specifically the Conservation Advisory Council)and the general public,including those comments made at the 2001
public hearing.
6
The City of Ithaca will continue to work toward enhancing the City's quality of life and
improving economic opportunities for all its residents. This plan adheres to sound regional land-
use planning,in that it encourages dense,mixed-use development in areas that are already built-
up such as in the City of Ithaca, which will in turn preserve farmland and open space outside of
the City. While encouraging this economic development, it is recognized that the preservation
and strengthening of Ithaca's residential neighborhoods will remain paramount to the City's
mission.
May 2002
The City of Ithaca recognizes the important role that public art can play in the quality of the built
environment and its relationship to the economic vitality of the city. As such,public art should
be incorporated into development projects in the city. The addition of a variety of art in public
spaces will enrich the everyday experiences of residents and visitors, create a sense of place, and
contribute to the visual vitality of the city's public environment. Studies have shown that public
art can promote enhanced tourism and be important components in economic development,
contributing to a region's livability and quality of life -- factors in attracting and retaining
businesses and employees.
March 2003
7
i
SECTION 2. `
HIGHLIGHTS
This report examines issues affecting economic development potential over the next five to 10
years in a large,under used part of the City of Ithaca. It outlines a vigorous program to promote
and encourage new economic growth.
Over the past eight months. Extensive group discussion, research, interviews and site
investigations have led to a number of major conclusions and recommendations, summarized
below. City policy makers ultimately must determine the extent to which they concur with, and
wish to support, these conclusions and recommendations and the general "rational-growth"
principles underlying this report.
Additional details and other recommended actions that the city should consider to further
economic development can be found in Section 4, Section 5 and Appendices A, B and C.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Ithaca is fiscally stable with good credit, manageable debt and a higher bond rating than
most cities in the state. However,problems of a stagnant revenue stream and an annual
increase in the cost of running government and providing quality services have made a
balanced budget increasingly difficult to achieve. Budget projections suggest that current
trends are not expected to change in the near. future. It appears that substantial increases .,;
in property taxes from an eroding base will be in the picture unless significant new
sources of revenue can be found. High property taxes can act as a disincentive to
businesses looking to locate in the City of Ithaca. Higher taxes could also discourage the
growth and physical expansion of existing businesses and/or result in relocation outside
of the city.
2. Based on group discussion with property owners, developers, investors,realtors,business
managers and other community leaders, Ithaca needs to change its public image to be
solidly positive about future growth. City government should act decisively to establish
a policy on growth that can capitalize on growth potential and clearly reflect current
attitudes and concerns about the local economy.
3. Expanding the taxable property base and increasing revenues from sales taxes are the
most critical challenges for the city's economy at present and for the foreseeable future.
Job creation, another very important factor, would be a beneficial by-product of any
significant increase in industrial and commercial development.
4. In the long run, strengthening large and small businesses and industries that are already
in place will be the most effective way to create a consistent and reliable economy in
Ithaca and Tompkins County.
8
5. There is open, undeveloped land in the city's Route 13/Inlet Valley corridor that is
comparable in area to Cornell's Business and Technology Park on Brown Road but lacks
infrastructure and has not been prepared for development. Other smaller parcels, some
with exceptionally good locations, should have high development potential. Some of
these parcels are vacant; some are currently being used for less than optimum
development purposes. An aggressive marketing campaign could help identify
prospective developers for this area.
6. The high cost of assembling land and making it suitable for use can sometimes be a
handicap for development faced by many that might desire a city location. The use of
incentives such as low interest revolving loan funds and existing programs for partial tax
abatement to compensate for high development costs could be economically beneficial.
Other factors that may lead to higher development costs in the city are the soil conditions
in the valley and the city's higher site plan development standards, resulting in a more
aesthetically pleasing community and environmentally responsible development.
7. Most communities in New York State take advantage of real property tax law to offer an
incentive to development. As an additional tool for competitiveness, the City should
consider the possible use of incentives such as real property tax abatements to encourage
new development or expansion of existing businesses. Such incentives could be targeted
to either particular kinds of projects or to specific areas of the city in which development
and expansion are deemed desirable. It will be important to discuss this issue with other
taxing jurisdictions in the local area, namely Tompkins County and the Ithaca City
School District. Other possible economic development incentives, beyond tax
abatements, should be investigated and explored.
8. Downtown Ithaca (The Commons area) is experiencing fundamental market changes.
Strong public-private initiatives are in process to develop creative and comprehensive
solutions to downtown problems. Efforts to assist with upper story rehabilitation, facade
improvements and marketing vacant ground floor space should continue to be high
priority items for city officials.
9. City regulations governing land use and development--zoning, site plan review and City
Environmental Quality Review(CEQR)-- should be modified to promote rational land
use patterns and minimize adversarial developer-versus-municipality situations.
Development concerns should be clearly identified and criteria and standards established
that reduce the need for subjective judgements by the reviewing agency. Techniques to
simplify and expedite the project review and approval process should be considered and
implemented.
10. Vacant and under-used land near Route 13 in the Inlet Valley has great potential for
future economic development and should be marketed and used primarily for industrial
and commercial purposes. (Note: Fourteen specific areas are evaluated in Appendix A.)
9
i
11. The city should continue as a strong participant in the activities of Tompkins County "
Area Development and take maximum advantage of this effective resource.
12. To increase its ability to compete for economic development,the city should pre-qualify
the best potential sites, plan for infrastructure improvements as necessary, provide a
single-contact person to expedite projects as they move through the regulatory process
and institute an aggressive marketing program to identify and attract prospective
developers and businesses.
13. Investments by the City in the environment and infrastructure reflect the City's
commitment to economic development. The City should consider developing a
marketing plan so that prospective developers, investors, and other businesses can be
made aware of the opportunities which exist in the City of Ithaca. The marketing plan
should also promote the City as a place to live,work and do business, emphasizing the W
high quality of life the city and the surrounding communities offer. ON
14. Future economic stability for the city and other Tompkins County communities could be
greatly enhanced by effective programs to integrate services and share the benefits of
growth. Joint responsibility for the operation and administration of public water and
sewer systems and for providing fire protection and public transit services are examples
of existing programs that show that intermunicipal cooperation can be successful in the
county. If political issues can be overcome, additional bold steps toward the long-range .
goal of intermunicipal sharing can be taken. This would increase efficiency and promote
the reduction of intermunicipal competition for development. It would also help to make
Tompkins County more competitive in a regional and global economy.
15. The basic need for sustained economic growth and job creation should be part of a
broader vision for the city that also includes concerns for housing, neighborhood
preservation,environmental safeguards,traffic control,education,recreation and cultural x
opportunity. Some of these considerations are regional in nature but others relate
specifically to life in Ithaca and must be included in a balanced overall development "
equation for the city.
,u.
16. The city should take advantage of every opportunity to promote local public support for
a"rational-growth" policy that increases local pay rolls and generates new tax revenue.
17. Investments by the City in the environment and infrastructure are important to any
comprehensive economic development strategy. The City should continue to invest and
reinvest in these areas as an affirmation of its commitment to economic development. r
M.
10
SECTION 3.
CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
Traditional studies of an economy attempt to analyze in considerable detail the economic
dynamics of the area under investigation. The objective of such studies is to understand the
economy in a structural sense,to describe what it is,how it works and the positive and negative
factors that influence it. This approach usually involves detailed quantitative analyses of
conditions and trends related to population, labor force, employment by industry group, per
capita and household income, commutation and local employee mobility. Other important
considerations -- housing, job training, infrastructure, land use regulations, environmental
constraints and quality of life-- go beyond statistical analysis and involve value judgments and
public attitudes. Ultimately,the economy is a reflection of both statistical and social factors.
Typical economic studies are inevitably more realistic and meaningful when undertaken for
larger geographic and population areas. Metropolitan centers, counties, regions and states
provide a broad framework for obtaining more reliable data to measure and project economic
activity. This is particularly true when data availability depends on the federal census or a
department of New York State government. Even when data from these sources can be obtained
for areas as small as the City of Ithaca,they are not necessarily appropriate or current indicators
of conditions, trends and needs. Also, because data used to measure and describe traditional
economic indicators are usually limited by municipal boundaries they often do not present a true
picture of local problems and opportunities.
To the extent possible and meaningful, economic indicators and barometers for the City of Ithaca
will be considered as part of the economic development strategy being prepared for Tompkins
County. The city is a complex and multi-dimensional component of the County's economy and
will be considered as such in the overall county strategy.
For purposes of this economic development plan, background data included on the following
pages focuses on information that illustrates conditions that most directly impact economic
activity in the city. Information is presented to emphasize the following specific points.
The city must increase annual revenue from traditional or other sources, or improve
operational efficiency,preferably both, if an acceptable property tax rate and the current
level of service provided by city government are to be maintained.
For at least the past five years,there has been a consistent decline in the taxable value of
real property in the city while surrounding towns in the urban area have grown.
At present, city budget revenues from property and sales taxes are approximately equal in
value. Together, they supply almost 60% of the annual revenue needed to run city
government. Property tax is the only revenue source over which the city has direct control.
The City's budget includes large expenditures for some critical municipal functions and
services such as roads, bridges, fire protection and recreation that benefit a much broader
area and population than the city itself. In some cases,these services generate substantial
revenue to offset some of the City's operating costs.
11
i
TABLE 1: ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES
SUBJECT TO COUNTY GENERAL AND HIGHWAY TAXES, 1993 - 1997
Tompkins City of % Town of Town of Town of
Year County Ithaca TC Ithaca* Lansing* Dryden*
1997 3,502,034,941 808,912,259 23.1 738,922,384 674,946,793 496,122,333
1996 3,530,312,370 833,257,215 23.6 741,657,310 662,882,292 496,119,917
1995 3,503,501,212 846,364,128 24.2 715,839,628 657,095,609 494,933,663
1994 3,501,968,302 866,148,064 24.7 710,805,217 650,080,929 494,595,599
1993 3,490,272,953 876,318,613 25.1 707,759,214 646,982,154 488,634,542
Change Plus 0.3% Minus 7.7% -- Plus 4.4% Plus 4.3% Plus 1.5%
'93-'97
*Town figures include villages
Source: Report of Committee on Footings of Assessment Rolls,Tompkins County Division of
Assessment;PERC
Note: Figures for real property value subject to county general and highway taxes have been used to
enable consistent comparison between municipalities.
Tompkins County's total taxable value increased by less than 1/2%from 1993 to 1997.
The percentage of the county's total taxable value that is located within the city has declined slowly rt,
since 1993 when it was just over 25%.
The real property and franchise tax base which provides tax revenue for the city has declined 7.7%
since 1993,an average of roughly$16 million in valuation each year for the past four years. At the
1998 ad valorem tax rates(see Table 6), a decline of this magnitude represents a loss of revenue
of approximately $504,000. The City's loss would be $146,000, the County's $80,000 and the
School District's$278,000.
Taxable value in both the Towns of Ithaca and Lansing increased by more than 4%over the five-
year period. The Town of Dryden grew by 1.5%.
The Town of Ithaca experienced a small decline in taxable value between 1996 and 1997.This may
be a temporary condition or the beginning of a period of tax base erosion similar to that
experienced by the city.
Combined,the Towns of Ithaca and Lansing, including their villages,have a taxable base that is
75% larger than the City's and a population that is 8% less.
Erosion of the city's tax base is due primarily to changes in the real estate market. Figures above
reflect limited revaluation in some areas, reductions of assessed value for some properties as a
result of formal grievances and the new construction activity that has occurred, minus
demolitions. A countywide revaluation in the year 2000 is expected to show either that property
values have stabilized or, more likely, that the current trend has continued.
12
TABLE 2: SALES TAX RECEIPTS, 1992 - 1997
Total % % %
Year Received Change County Share Change City Share Change
1997 34,671,770 +5.8 19,504,993 +5.9 6,569,745 +3.0
1996 32,784,204 +0.5 18,426,363 +0.4 6,378,488 +0.5
1995 32,623,092 0.0 18,355,235 0.0 6,349,619 -1.5
1994 32,623,696 +3.7 18,363,905 +0.8 6,446,172* NA
1993 31,457,322* NA 18,518,060* NA 5,630,753 NA
1992 23,444,020 -- 11,812,145 -- 5,506,129 --
Source: Tompkins County Office of the Director of Finance;PERC
*Reflects benefits from the increase in sales tax from 7%to 8%
In the 1997 and 1998 city budgets, the amount of revenue generated by non-property tax items
(including sales and use taxes)was approximately equivalent to that generated by real property tax
items(see Table 4). Trends clearly indicate that non-property taxes could easily become the City's
dominant revenue source in the future. Conditions could change, however, if retail sales decline
markedly (which means less sales tax revenue) or if there is new construction in the city or a
significant increase in the tax rate on existing real property.
Preliminary figures for the first two quarters of 1998, show sales tax revenue that is 16% greater
than the first two quarters of 1997 (see Table below). If this trend continues for the last two
quarters of 1998,the City's revenue picture from this source would be greatly enhanced.
1997 1998 Change 97-98
1st quarter 1,340,547 1,766,483 actual +3.2%
2nd quarter 1,765,964 1,827,910 actual +3.5%
3rd quarter 1,741,352 1,793,593 est.* +3.0%est.
4th quarter 1,721,881 1,773,538 est.* +3.0%est.
,L TOTAL 6,569,745 7,161,524 est.* +9.0%est.
Source:Tompkins County Office of the Director of Finance
*Estimates by PERC based on an assumption of a 3%increase per quarter from
1997 figures.
It can be seen that the sales tax is a very important source of the revenue needed to fund city
budgets. It is unpredictable, however, and largely beyond the control of local government.
Maintaining and improving the viability of commercial centers like the Commons, Collegetown,
Elmira Road and the West End will maximize sales tax revenue potential and thereby help to
stabilize property tax rates.
13
i
TABLE 3: AD VALOREM TAX RATES PER$1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE, 1998*
City or County& Total/$1,000 of
Municipality Town Special District School District Assessed Value
City 9.127 5.021 17.360 31.508
(Ith. Consolidated)
Town of Ithaca 1.256 8.308 16.570 26.134
(Ith.Consolidated)
Town of Lansing 1.318 5.792 17.500 24.610
(outside Village) (Lansing Central)
Town of Dryden 2.259 6.408 16.950 25.617
(outside Village) (Ith. Consolidated)
*Based on 1997 Assessment Rolls
Source: Tompkins County Division of Assessment
Total property tax rates in the city are 21% higher than the town of Ithaca, 28%
higher than the Town of Lansing and 23%higher than the Town of Dryden.
School District tax rates in the four comparison municipalities are comparable with
only slight variation.
City taxes are substantially higher than the comparison municipalities. This is partly
due to the fact that the city has a larger physical plant to maintain and provides a
significantly higher level of services.
The Towns of Ithaca,Lansing and Dryden use their shares of sales tax revenue as a
way to keep town property taxes relatively low.
Using the tax rates in Table 3, total property taxes on a $200,000 property in the
comparison communities would be:
City $6,301
Town of Ithaca 5,227
Town of Lansing 4,922
Town of Dryden 5,123
Some potential businesses and land developers seeking a high level of municipal
services and a centralized location would consider the City's higher tax rate a
reasonable cost of doing business.
14
TABLE 4: ITHACA GENERAL FUND REVENUES: 1993 - 1998
Source of revenue 1993 revenue % of 1997 revenue % of Change 1998 revenue % of
(actual) total (actual) total 93 -97 (adopted budget) total
Real Prop. Tax Items* 7,003,073 30 7,449,361 28 6% 7,697,136 28
Non-prop. Tax Items** 6,067,819 26 7,690,217 29 27% 8,153,169 30
State and Federal Aid 2,790,049 12 2,627,553 10 -0.6% 2,666,276 10
Departmental Income 2,144,792 9 2,502,614 9 17% 2,584,607 9
Intergovernmental 1,952,807 8 2,660,802 10 36% 2,734,754 10
Charges
Interfund Transfers 1,276,753 6 1,558,338 6 22% 1,666,971 6
Other Sources*** 1,951,460 8 2,178,206 8 12% 2,049,300 7
TOTAL 23,186,566 -- 26,666,371 -- 15% 27,552,213 --
Source: Basic data from City Comptroller;calculations by PERC.
* Includes property taxes,payment in-lieu of taxes,special assessments,etc.
** Includes sales and use taxes,gross receipt tax on utilities and franchise tax(see below).
*** Includes fines,property sales,interest on money and miscellaneous items.
Since the real property tax base is shrinking(see Table 1),revenue from this source
can increase only if the tax rate per$1,000 is increased. Since the city already has
a higher property tax rate than surrounding municipalities(see Table 3), continued
large increases could be a serious deterrent to future economic development.
Over 60%of the revenue obtained from Intergovernmental Charges comes from Fire
Protection Services; another 32%comes from Youth Services. These two revenue
items account for most of the 36% increase in Intergovernmental Charges between
1993 and 1997.
The 1997 revenue from non-property tax items consisted of sales tax(85%),use tax
(8%),gross utility receipts tax(5%)and franchise tax(2%). This revenue component
could increase substantially in 1998 if strong growth in sales tax receipts continues
for the last two quarters of the year(see Table 2). This increasingly important source
of revenue is,of course,unpredictable and beyond the City's direct control.
State and federal aid was almost static between 1993 and 1997. Although the city
has been extremely successful in obtaining state and federal funds, this money is
earmarked for specific programs and is often awarded through the competitive grant-
writing process. This revenue source is,therefore,very unpredictable and of limited
value for operating budget purposes.
15
i
TABLE 5: ITHACA GENERAL,FUND EXPENDITURES: 1993 - 1998 '
1993 1997 1998
Expenditures % of Expenditures % of Change Expenditures % of
Department (actual) total (actual) total 93-97 (adopted budget) total
General Government 1,877,233 8 2,015,090 8 7% 2,009,564 7
Public Works Services 4,765,256 20 5,208,983 19 9% 5,286,002 19
Police Department 3,657,937 16 4,834,842 18 32% 4,902,681 17
Fire Department 3,164,310 14 3,764,127 14 19% 3,788,716 13
Building Department 409,245 2 430,443 2 5% 469,610 2 we
Youth Services 1,993,413 9 2,731,314 10 37% 2,768,404 10
Planning&Development 333,851 1 398,990 1 20% 396,935 1 •�$
Employee Benefits 4,337,400 19 4,044,460 15 -7% 4,743,327 17 "
Debt Service 2,614,032 11 3,351,628 13 28% 3,723,598 13
TOTAL 23,152,677 -- 26,779,877 -- 16% 28,088,837 --
Source:Basic data from City Comptroller;calculations by PERC.
Between 1993 and 1997 the cost of government increased by 16%,an average of about 3.5%per
year. The adopted budget for 1998 is 4.8%higher than actual expenditures in 1997.
Public Works services,at 19%of total budget,represents the largest single departmental cost for
the city. Over 40%of public works costs are for cleaning and maintaining the 77 miles of streets,
22 bridges and numerous park facilities that are available to all county residents. Another 25%
represents the City's contribution to operation of the consolidated transit system.
The total cost of public safety,combining police and fire departments,represents just under 1/3
of the City's total expense budget.
The city will receive almost $1,800,000 in revenue for fire protection provided to the Town of
Ithaca in 1998. This will offset over 45%of the department's budget.
Youth services and police each increased by over 30%between 1993 and 1997 but the percent-of-
total-budget represented by these departments has remained about the same since 1993. Youth
services will receive over$800,000 in revenue from other municipalities in 1998.
Employee benefits declined by 7%between 1993 and 1997,then showed a 17%increase for the
1998 budget. Retirement,social security and health insurance are the benefits that have increased
most since 1997.
16
TABLE 6: TAXABLE AND WHOLLY EXEMPT PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITY, 1997
Value of Real % of Total
Property & % of Total Wholly
Franchise Subject to Taxable Exempt
County General& Property in Value of Wholly Property in
Municipality Highway Tax County Exempt Property County
City of Ithaca 808,912,259 23.1 1,143,918,800 50.2
Town of 738,922,344 21.1 680,327,500 29.9
Ithaca
Lansing 674,946,793 19.3 122,451,900 5.4
Dryden 496,122,333 14.2 165,996,600 7.3
Ulysses 218,528,539 6.2 44,659,500 2.0
Groton 134,902,212 3.9 54,816,000 2.4
Newfield 128,587,620 3.7 22,067,500 1.0
Danby 117,116,434 3.3 11,160,100 0.5
Caroline 93,343,823 2.7 21,481,430 1.0
Enfield 90,652,544 2.6 9,678,900 0.04
TOTAL 3,502,034,941 --- 2,276,558,230 ---
Source:Report of Committee on Footings of Assessment Rolls,Tompkins County Division of Assessment;
PERC
Note: Figures for real property value subject to county general and highway taxes have been used to enable
consistent comparisons between municipalities. Town figures include villages.
Half of all tax-exempt property in Tompkins County is located in the City of Ithaca;
only 23%of the County's taxable property is located in the city.
Forty-one percent of all property located in the city is taxable; 59% is tax exempt.
Combined, the Towns of Ithaca and Lansing have $600 million more taxable
valuation, $340 million less tax exempt property and 8% less population than the
City of Ithaca.
Based on 1990 census figures,taxable property per capita would be:
Town of Lansing $72,606
Town of Ithaca $41,519
Town of Dryden $37,440
City of Ithaca $27,383
17
TABLE 7: REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ITHACA SUBJECT TO
COUNTY GENERAL AND HIGHWAY TAXES* (1997 Assessment Rolls)
TAXABLE VALUE OF
PROPERTY SUBJECT % of NUMBER
TO COUNTY TOTAL OF
GENERAL AND TAXABLE TAXABLE
PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION HIGHWAY TAXES* VALUE PARCELS
210 One-family Residential 229,539,000 29 2,481
220-280 Other Residential(excluding 103,645,000 13 1,020
commercial living accommodations)
310-340 Vacant 13,763,000 2 430
411 Commercial: Apartments&Co-ops 180,625,000 23 669 *'
415-426 Other Commercial Housing 47,478,000 6 102
(motels,etc.)and Dining
Establishments
450-465 Retail Services,Banks, Offices 57,193,000 7 64
480-485 Multiple Use Commercial Estab.** 96,282,000 12 327
511-570 Recreation and Entertainment 4,382,000 1 15
612-691 Community Services 7,813,000 1 9
710 Manufacturing and Processing 9,618,000 1 16
All other classifications 36,362,000 5 144
TOTAL(1997 Assessment Rolls) 786,593,000 100 5277
Source:Property Classification Summary,Tompkins County Division of Assessment, 12/17/97;calculations by PERC
NOTE: Property classifications are based on Property Type Classification and Ownership Codes as set forth in the
Assessor's Manual published by the State Board of Real Property Services, 1996.
* Excludes Special Franchise,Public Service and Ceiling Railroad items.
** Includes downtown row-type structures(detached arid attached),converted residences,one-story small structures.
One-,two-and three family residences(210, 220-280)account for 66%of the taxable
parcels in the city and 42%of total taxab value.
Twenty-three percent of the City's total taxable value comes from commercial
apartments and co-ops(411),a clear indication of the strong Cornell University and
Ithaca College off-campus housing market.
Approximately 20%of the total taxable value is derived from retail services, banks,
offices(450-465),multi-use commercial establishments(480-485)and manufacturing
and processing(710). These activities occupy a total of only 8%of the 5,277 taxable
land parcels in the city.
18
SECTION 4.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
PURPOSE
While a benefit of, and justification for, additional economic development in the city will be an
increase in net revenue from property and sales taxes and the creation of additional employment
opportunities,the ultimate purpose of economic development is to make the City a better place
to live. Therefore, a primary goal of economic development policy will be the protection and
improvement of the local residential neighborhoods, with particular attention to those
neighborhoods which will be impacted by economic development projects. This objective must
be reflected in long-range planning for the City's economy. The City should develop and
implement a set of action-based and comprehensive Neighborhood Improvement Plans,which
include a strategy for funding neighborhood improvement projects with revenue generated by
economic development, including mitigation fees, sales taxes,property taxes, and grants. The
Neighborhood Improvement Plans should be commenced in the year 2001, in consultation with
City residents, and published as a companion document to the Economic Development Plan.
These two objectives are linked in reality and must therefore be linked in the City's planning
policy.
Clear statements of government policy on growth and development form the foundation of an
effective economic development plan. It is on the strength and tenor of these policy statements
that public and private development decisions can be made and investment risks can be
evaluated. Once officially established and made known by the city,development policy provides
strong justification for specific public-sector decisions on land use regulations and capital
improvement expenditures. A clearly stated policy also defines a consistent direction for official
agencies and boards; it can become a defensible rationale for many decisions on zoning and site
plan review that must be made by local government officials.
As one of 16 municipalities in Tompkins County,the City of Ithaca will be affected by economic
development plans made by other municipalities and at the county level. Broadly based policies
related to economic issues and concerns are included in the countywide economic development
plan. While the city must determine its own economic future it must also decide the extent to
which policy used to guide city development can, and must, be integrated into the broader
context of surrounding municipalities and the county.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A long-range picture of economic development and related land use in Ithaca can take a variety
of forms depending,to a large extent, on the course of action--the policy--the city chooses to
follow at any given time. For this plan several alternatives for basic economic policy have been
considered; these are summarized in Appendix E.
To arrive at a specific recommendation from the Economic Development Advisory Committee,
alternatives have been synthesized into two policy statements: one addressing future growth and
one considering intermunicipal relations. Development objectives related to each policy are also
stated and a number of specific actions that could be taken to achieve the objectives are set forth
19
i
and prioritized. After appropriate review and public comment on this material, it will be the
responsibility of the Mayor and Council to define and pursue the course of action that most
nearly reflects current values and perceived needs.
Policies included in this plan relate specifically to economic development. They can
subsequently be integrated with others related to other important issues such as housing,
neighborhood development, recreation, traffic and transportation. Together, these policies
become the primary component of a comprehensive plan for the City's future. ,
k,
20
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: GROWTH
POLICY(Goals) OBJECTIVES ACTION NEEDED TO RESPON- PRIOR-
IWLEMENT OBJECTIVES SIBILITY ITV
The city strongly Stabilize,then expand, a. Complete the process that will
supports growth and the local property tax enable non-park development
believes that long-term base. of city-owned land on Elmira
community stability will Road. (See Footnote 1) Planning I
depend on a sustained Increase the potential b. Complete a pre-evaluation of
increase in economic for sales tax revenue. the nature and significance of
development activity at environmental impacts of
all levels.Accordingly, Create job opportunities potential new development
the city intends to: for a range of income along the Inlet and in the city's
levels and age groups. southwest quadrant.
act decisively to (See Footnote 2) Planning I
strengthen and Expand development c. Prepare broad but specific
expand existing opportunities in the guidelines for site
businesses throughout Central Business development and visual
the city; District. character for the area
initiate and support Reduce suburban sprawl described in"b" above.
efforts to attract new by fully developing (See Footnote 3.) Planning I
industrial and usable city sites. d. Review options related to
commercial financing fagade Building
development; Promote opportunities improvements and meeting Department
for intensive use of code requirements for upper
balance the need for remaining developable floor uses on The Commons. Planning II
additional sites throughout the city. e. Review City Environmental
development with the Quality Regulations(CEQR)
desire to maintain Foster a governmental and amend as necessary to be
neighborhood quality attitude of enthusiastic consistent with economic
and preserve natural but responsible policy. (See Footnote 4) Planning II
resources. cooperation in the land f. Amend zoning and site plan
development process. review regulations to help
maintain and achieve development
Supplement county objectives,restrict
improve efforts to retain and
neighborhood inappropriate land uses and
quality. attract business in the simplify the review and
city. approval process.
(See Footnote 4) Planning II
Encourage home g. Prepare preliminary needs
ownership and analysis,cost ranges and a
occupancy. financing strategy for
providing basic infrastructure
to undeveloped land in the
southwest area. Public
(See Footnote 5) Works I
See Footnotes following policy tables. (Growth table continued on next page)
21
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: GROWTR (continued)
POLICY(Goals) OBJECTIVES ACTION NEEDED TO RESPON- PRIOR-
L%IPLEMENT OBJECTIVES SIBILITY TTY*
h. Identify natural resources in
the city that are important to
preserve as growth occurs. Planning II
i. Find alternative sites for
material that must be removed
from Southwest Park. Public
(See Footnote 6) Works I1
j. Collaborate with Tompkins
County Area Development to Mayor/
fully promote city Council
development opportunities.
(See Footnote 7) Planning I
k. Establish a single contact
agency or person to guide
complex projects through the
permitting process and track
project progress. Mayor/
(See Footnote 8) Council I
1. Review, revise and move
forward on recommendations V fr
aries,
for action on other sites in the depending
city with development on oppor-
potential. (See Appendix A.) Planning tunity
m. Develop incentives and amend Mayor/
zoning where needed in order Council
to encourage home ownership I z
and occupancy. Planning
n. Develop and implement a City Mayor/
traffic plan with traffic calming Council
measures for City
neighborhoods and develop Planning
and implement an action- I
based, comprehensive Engineering
neighborhood improvement
plans Board of
Public
Works
* Priority Code:
I. Initiate Action Immediately and/or Expedite Completion
Il.Initiate Action by July 1999
See Footnotes following policy tables.
22
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY: INTER1VIUNICIPA ., RELATIONS
POLICY(Goals) OBJECTIVES ACTION NEEDED TO RESPONS PRIOR-
HAPLEMENT OBJECTIVES -IBILITY ITY
The city believes that Begin a high-level a. Formally request other
long-term economic dialogue on the municipalities to participate in
stability will require advantages and a discussion on the need for,
major initiatives aimed disadvantages of value of and ways to achieve
at fully supporting the intermunicipal sharing intermunicipal cooperation. Mayor I
concept of of resources such as b. Consider which format for
intermunicipal infrastructure, services area-wide service delivery,
cooperation while and revenue. including the transfer of
working toward responsibility to another level
optimum development Develop a rational of government or to an
within the city. formula for sharing the independent agency,
Accordingly,the city services needed to commission or board,would
intends to: stimulate development be most efficient and cost
in the urban area and effective for all involved
pursue development for sharing tax municipalities. Planning 11
potential of city sites. revenues generated by c. Identify and examine models
such development. for intermunicipal cooperation
cooperate with
officials at the Minimize and sharing in other
county,town and intermunicipal municipalities.
village levels to competition for (See Appendix C) Planning H
achieve economic economic d. Initiate a dialogue with other
growth on a development. municipalities to examine
countywide basis. mutual concerns and
Increase the County's expectations related to the
actively promote and collective ability to concept of cooperative Mayor/
participate in compete more agreements. Council 11
intermunicipal effectively for regional e. Consider and evaluate
discussion that leads economic techniques and procedures for
to a workable plan development. guiding and regulating
for the extension of development and land use on
services across Establish a workable an area-wide basis.
municipal format for future (See Footnote 9) Planning H
boundaries and for intermunicipal sharing f. Conclude negotiations
revenue sharing. or consolidation of a between joint owners of the
variety of services. Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant and adjacent
municipalities seeking public Mayor/
sewer services. Council 11
* Priority Code:
I. Initiate Action Immediately and/or Expedite Completion
II.Initiate Action by July 1999
See Footnotes following policy tables.
23
i
NOTES FOR POLICY TABLE ''
1. Southwest Park was purchased by the city in the 1960s. Its use was restricted to park
use. Before this area can be developed for any non-recreation use, substitute land with
similar area and value must be obtained and dedicated to park use. The process for
making this substitution is called alienation. The city is doing the work necessary for
completing the Southwest Park alienation process at the present time and expects to
conclude this project within the year.
2. The purpose of this action is to complete a preliminary and general assessment of the
potential impacts that could result from future development on large parcels of vacant
land in the southwest area. This process identifies and evaluates general concerns
related to the more intensive future uses permitted by zoning. The objective is to "pre-
evaluate", in general terms, prospective development issues, to identify concerns and
to consider a range of possible mitigation measures. (A Generic Environmental Impact
Statement is currently in process.)
3. A May 1998 addendum to the Southwest Area Land Use Plan provided for the
establishment of design guidelines and criteria for the Southwest Area.
4. Existing zoning, site plan review and CEQR regulations do not reflect current planning
objectives in some respects including the uses permitted in some districts, site develop-
ment requirements, environmental thresholds and approval procedures. A more detailed
review of these regulations is included in Appendix B of this report.
5. Anything the city can do to improve the competitive appeal of available sites and reduce
the development time line that is critical to most investors will help stimulate economic
growth. Basic infrastructure(water, sewage disposal and access roads)must eventually
be provided to development sites. Just as with environmental reviews, if some work
on infrastructure can be done in advance,the City's ability to compete for development
would be enhanced.
6. The city has used Southwest Park as a convenient storage area for construction and
ra.
organic material and for a snow disposal site. If this area is to be developed in the
future, alternative arrangements for current Department of Public Works (DPW)
activities will be needed.
7. Tompkins County Area Development(TCAD)is an established and successful agency
that promotes economic development throughout the county. The city should take full
advantage of TCAD's presence and discuss ways that this agency might be of even
greater assistance.
24
8. The city can demonstrate a desire to be helpful by guiding prospective developers
through the complex and often discouraging process of getting necessary approvals and
permits. A single contact point to explain the process, assist with scheduling, advise
on presentations,return phone calls and track the progress of proposals would help to
convey an attitude of enthusiasm and support that has not always been present.
9. Should there be a willingness to do so,two or more municipalities in Tompkins County
could agree to the joint preparation of a comprehensive land use plan identifying the
optimum location of future commercial and industrial areas. This procedure is
authorized by Article 5-G of General Municipal Law, which permits municipalities to
do jointly what each is empowered to do singly.
All municipalities in the urbanized area(City of Ithaca, Towns of Ithaca, Dryden and
Lansing, Villages of Cayuga Heights, Dryden, Freeville and Lansing) have a
comprehensive plan in one form or another but there has been little attempt to
coordinate them. All these municipalities also have zoning ordinances,but again,there
has been limited effort to look at zoning on a coordinated area-wide basis. Article 5-G
permits an area-wide approach to both planning and zoning if there is the political will
to do so.
Significant benefits can accrue from intermunicipal cooperation,whatever the enabling
legislation. Successful examples of intermunicipal cooperation already in place locally
include: a fire protection agreement between the City and Town of Ithaca, the
Recreation Partnership between the county and its municipalities, the ownership and
operation of the wastewater treatment plant by three municipalities, the Southern
Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton Point) covering five
municipalities, and the recently established Intermunicipal Cooperative Purchasing
Council which can effect savings on the purchase of equipment and material.
25
i
SECTION 5.
SITE ANALYSIS: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS t
A more detailed analysis and evaluation of 14 potential development areas is included in
Appendix A of this report. Possible choices for the future use of these areas, and a
recommendation for each,have been excerpted from the appendix and included on the following
pages. (See Analysis Areas Map)
AREA A
(South city boundary -- previously proposed Wal-Mart location)
Plausible Choices
1. Individual privately owned lots to be developed for various commercial purposes in
response to market demand.
2. Assemble all lots under one ownership, remove existing land uses and redevelop the
Elmira Road frontage for commercial or light industrial purposes. .
Recommendation
The city should promote private development as one, or several, large parcels. The petroleum
storage site will require investigation and possible remediation prior to redevelopment.
AREA B
(Southwest Park)
Plausible Choices
1. Leave as is and continue present use.
2. Develop for park and recreation purposes.
3. Planned development area for housing or a mix of housing and commercial uses.
4. Planned development area for industrial/commercial uses.
5. Combine with adjacent vacant parcels to create an extensive fully serviced industrial/
commercial development complex.
Recommendation
Open space or housing cannot be considered optimal future uses of a strategic parcel located
in a heavily commercialized section of the city. Choices 4 and 5 will help achieve economic
development objectives by producing maximum opportunity for job creation and increased
tax revenue. In any case, a zoning change should be made to assure that desired future land
uses can be encouraged and inappropriate uses avoided.
t These recommendations are made by PERC as consultant to the city and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of the Advisory Committee.
26
AREA C
(Weiner land--former city open dump area)
Plausible Choices
1. Retain existing zoning designation and promote additional mobile home residential
development, or other affordable housing, after site clean up.
2. Amend zoning and encourage industrial/commercial development, ideally in
combination with Southwest Park.
Recommendation
Housing should not be considered the optimal future use of this large area. Development in
conjunction with Southwest Park for industrial or commercial purposes will most benefit the
local economy by creating jobs and increasing tax revenues.
AREA D
(Weiner land south of Cherry Street Industrial Park)
Plausible Choices
1. Development determined by market, zoning and current ownership.
2. Property owner and city collaborate to extend infrastructure and promote parcel for
light industrial or research uses.
3. City acquires parcel, extends infrastructure and markets the area as one or more
partially pre-approved sites.
Recommendation
Land acquisition and infrastructure costs per square foot of developable land could be high on
this parcel. Even so, it makes sense as a future development area and choices 2 or 3 would be
appropriate. An important question for the city to review is whether or not the investment
needed to make this site viable could produce more immediate results if invested in another area.
AREA E
(Narrow strip along the Inlet between Court Street and the I.C. Boathouse)
Plausible Choices
1. Development determined by market, zoning and current ownership.
2. Promote commercial/marina development with public access along the shoreline.
3. Promote relatively dense townhouse development or mixed housing and commercial.
4. Secure easement to assure public access through the site.
27
i
Recommendation
A strip of 2- or 3-story townhouses facing the inlet would provide an attractive housing option
and minimize potential access and parking problems on this narrow parcel. This area provides
an important link in the proposed shoreline trail system and a public walkway should be included
in any future development.
AREA F
(NYS Department of Transportation [DOT]garage and storage facility)
Plausible Choices
1. Continue with current use and encourage DOT to improve shoreline access and
landscaping.
2. Work with DOT to relocate its operation and transfer ownership to the county or city.
Find more appropriate private and/or public use for this unique waterfront site.
3. Consider this site as part of a larger unified development area. Consider eventual
relocation of petroleum business and review Carpenter Park development guidelines
to promote future use compatibility for this entire area.
Recommendation
State Department of Transportation use of this waterside site is no longer necessary or
appropriate. Relatively intensive commercial use, possibly related to tourism and conferences
with boat access,would be most beneficial to the city and county economy. The county and city
should,therefore,join forces to secure this site and establish guidelines for future development.
Guidelines should include some opportunity for public access to the shoreline. In the long run,
an overall plan for development of this entire area(Choice 3, above) would be highly beneficial
but a major reuse program for the DOT site would be an important initial accomplishment.
AREA G
(Willow Avenue adjacent to city's Public Works facility)
Plausible Choices
1. Follow the city's consolidation plan including the relocation of the Water and Sewer
Division's facility on First Street.
2. Rethink the city's plan; do not relocate the Water and Sewer Division, and try to make
either the entire Willow Avenue site, or the western half, available for private
industrial/commercial development.
28
Recommendation
Private development potential on this site is limited by its size. The city should complete its
relocation plan for public works and make the First Street/Franklin Street parcels available for
development. (See also Analysis Area H)
AREA H
(Franklin Street and First Street near the Sciencenter)
Plausible Choices
1. Pursue Department of Public Works(DPW)consolidation plan,move Water and Sewer
Division to Willow Avenue and combine parcels by vacating Franklin Street right-of-
way. (See also Analysis Area G)
2. Move Water and Sewer activities, retain Franklin Street and have two potential
redevelopment parcels.
3. Keep water and sewer activities where they now are and make triangular piece
available for redevelopment.
Recommendation
The city should either proceed with DPW consolidation or make the Willow Street site(Analysis
Area G) available for development. If consolidation is pursued, the redevelopment potential
along Franklin Street would be enhanced. In addition to a decision on consolidation, there
should also be a traffic study to determine if part of Franklin Street can be vacated and how the
Franklin Street, Third Street, Route 13 interchange can be improved.
AREA I
(Narrow strip along the Inlet between Buffalo and State Streets)
Plausible Choices
1. Let market forces and zoning determine future use and character.
2. Modify zoning to increase the potential for development compatibility with Inlet Island.
3. Concentrate development efforts on those areas with high reuse potential, i.e.,between
State and Seneca Streets.
Recommendation
The current use and condition of much of this area is not compatible with development
objectives for Inlet Island and modification might be difficult. Efforts should be focused on
zoning changes and on promoting the unified redevelopment of lots adjacent to the bus station
and branch bank, possibly combining all lots in this block into one development parcel.
29
i
AREA J
(Carpenter Business Park)
Plausible Choices
1. Continue current policy and wait for the development climate in this part of the city to
change.
2. Modify restrictions so that land can be used for commercial as well as industrial
purposes.
3. Sell land and allow future use to be determined by zoning.
Recommendation
The city's desire to retain ownership of this parcel is probably less a limitation to development
than the industrial use requirement. In addition to industry, office uses and some types of retail
development would be appropriate. Present Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency(IURA)restrictions
should be modified to permit these possibilities. The city could then lease or sell this land for
the type of development that seems most suited to the desired future character of this entire area.
(See also Analysis Area F)
AREA K
(Ithaca Gun buildings)
Plausible Choices
1. Stabilize buildings and search for a suitable light industrial use.
2. Remove all existing buildings that would be impractical to rehabilitate and convert
remaining buildings into offices or non-student housing.
3. Clear site and build an office complex or new up-scale apartments.
4. Clear site and use for neighborhood open space.
Recommendation
This dramatic site would appear to have strong redevelopment potential but costs and other
limitations might outweigh the opportunities. An engineering analysis would indicate what parts
of the existing buildings could be effectively rehabilitated and what should be removed. Light
industry or distinctive offices might be effective uses of existing floor space; new construction
could include apartments, townhouses or office suites, all of which would fit into this historic
environment if parking could be provided. The city's ability to affect the disposition of this site
is limited at present.
30
AREA L
(Wilcox Press building on Six Mile Creek)
Plausible Choices
1. Public acquisition of the site and removal of most existing buildings to provide park
space and exceptional access opportunities to the Six Mile Creek gorge.
2. Apply for a grant or loan to facilitate private-sector acquisition of this parcel and
removal of all structures not suitable for reuse as upscale housing or specialized
commercial reuse such as professional offices,boutiques, crafts, entertainment or a
mix of such uses.
3. Convert existing buildings into some type of light industrial, fabrication, assembly
or high technology operation.
Recommendation
This site is both highly appealing and highly problematic. It has great but very specialized reuse
potential and seems a natural for private sector development that would complement and
contribute to activities in the downtown. An innovative business,high-end housing or a mix of
housing and business would be the best reuse. Most likely some form of subsidy for site cleanup
will be needed to improve feasibility. Public pedestrian access into Six Mile Creek gorge should
be secured. The city's ability to affect the disposition of this site is limited at present.
AREA M
(Emerson Building 24 -the Morse Building)
Plausible Choices
1. Continue cooperative and on-going efforts to market space for a variety of new uses.
2. Study in some detail the feasibility of subdividing the space, upgrading the sprinkler
system if necessary and improving the external appearance and accessibility.
3. Help Emerson obtain an incentive grant or low interest loan to undertake the upgrades
and improvements identified in the feasibility study.
Recommendation
All three choices are appropriate. The potential for turning Building 24 into a viable
concentration of job-producing activities appears to be high and has been recognized by TCAD
and company officials. Increased effort from the public sector to help Emerson obtain funding
assistance for feasibility studies,rehabilitation,general upgrading and increased marketing would
enhance feasibility and future use potential. The city's ability to affect the disposition of this site
is limited at present.
31
i
AREA N
(Multi-use industrial area along West Clinton and Cherry Streets)
Plausible Choices
1. Allow market forces to determine future development activity in this area.
2. Develop an overall plan for landscaping, street, sidewalk, and lighting improvements
and include this in the annual capital program as a multi-year improvement project,
possibly funded by grants.
3. Request the IURA to purchase some of the parcels along West Clinton Street and work
in conjunction with private owners in a private/public partnership to make site
improvements and promote industrial development.
Recommendation
All three choices are appropriate. This area needs major upgrading to visually improve the '
setting for existing and future development including the Cherry Street Industrial Park. ,
Consolidated public and private actions to improve general appearance and amenity could be a
significant first step. The city should seek funds to consolidate curb cuts where possible, add `
street trees, decorative lighting and sidewalks where needed, cut weeds and work with property
owners to otherwise improve the visual impact of their holdings. Tree planting programs along
the inlet should be expanded to improve the appearance of this area.
The economic benefits of assembling vacant or under used parcels, especially on West Clinton
Street,rehabilitating them and marketing them for industrial, warehouse or commercial purposes
f;
could be substantial.
a.,
32
APPENDICES
(In supplemental report)
APPENDIX A: SITE EVALUATION AREAS
This appendix contains an evaluation of 14 sites located in the study area. Included is a
description of the nature of each site, its physical characteristics and its surroundings. Plausible
uses or reuses of each site have been suggested and a recommendation by the consultant has been
made. The evaluations were made in early 1998 and represent the apparent conditions at that
time.
APPENDIX B: ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Existing regulations that affect development in the city have been reviewed; suggestions for
possible amendments to clarify, simplify and streamline have been made. Regulations reviewed
include zoning, land subdivision, site plan review and environmental quality review.
APPENDIX C: INTERMUNICIPAL COOPERATION
One model illustrating an intermunicipal cooperation agreement in Chenango County is
presented in this appendix. The primary features of this agreement are described and steps that
would be necessary to affect a similar agreement between Tompkins County municipalities have
been identified.
APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
The economic development policies on growth and intermunicipal relations, as set forth in
Section 4 of the Economic Development Plan, are recommendations of the Advisory Committee
based on a discussion of alternatives. The alternative policy and action statements that were
reviewed by the Committee are included in Appendix D.
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF SMALL-GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Thirty-eight local and regional people were invited by Mayor Cohen to participate in small group
discussions of Ithaca as a place to invest and do business. The intent was to draw on the
experience of these individuals and capitalize on their advice. A summary of the group
discussions is included in Appendix E.
APPENDIX F: ADVISORY COMMITTEE VALUE SCAN
At the beginning of the study Advisory Committee members were asked to express their personal
opinions and values as they related to economic development in Ithaca and Tompkins County.
The results of this exercise are presented in this appendix.
33
i
APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF MATERIAL REVIEWED FOR THIS REPORT
Previous studies and reports related to economic development and land use in Ithaca and
Tompkins County are numerous and there is consistency in past recommendations that have been
made. Many of these studies have been reviewed as background for this report and summarized
in this appendix.
APPENDIX H: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORUM
In the fall of 1996 an Economic Development Forum was convened to provide insight and
guidance on the city's economy. Seventy-five people who lived or worked in the Ithaca area
were asked to help with the formulation of goals and objectives for the city's economic future.
The list of the participants and the forum topic and conclusions can be found in this appendix.
�f
34
APPENDIX A: SITE EVALUATION AREAS
Within the study area there are numerous parcels of land that are either undeveloped or do not
appear to be used to their maximum economic potential. Each of these parcels has been
examined and evaluated. In some cases contiguous individual parcels have been grouped together
into a larger land area.
Fourteen areas with development or redevelopment potential have been evaluated. The location
of each area is described and its location is shown on the Site Analysis Areas Map. The size and
general shape of the site and its current owner of record are indicated. Vehicular access to the
site, its current use and assessed value and the availability of utilities have been noted. Current
zoning of the area,the uses of adjacent land,basic characteristics of the surrounding environment
and recommended uses of the area from previous studies have been described.
Positive and negative characteristics that could affect future use potential are identified. Finally,
some plausible choices for future use of the site are described (there could be others) and a
recommendation from the consultant has been put forth for consideration.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA A
Location: Immediately north of the city's southern boundary;west of Elmira Road and
the flood control levee.
Area: Five separate tax parcels totaling approximately 47 acres.About half of this
area is owned by the city and county. Elmira Road frontage is privately
owned.
Shape: Irregular due to the curve of the railroad right-of-way and Cayuga Inlet but
with substantial depth from Elmira Road.
Ownership: City owns about 20 acres located along the southern and western boundaries;
County owns just over two acres(currently optioned to Havlik); Havlik owns
two parcels, Weiner and Doney own one parcel each.
Access: Elmira Road provides direct access opportunities.
Current Use: Largely vacant. One parcel with narrow frontage on Elmira Road is occupied
by a petroleum storage and distribution operation;there is a one family
residence on another parcel.
Assessed Value: Total privately owned: $693,000.
Total publicly owned: $38,400 plus an undetermined amount for small
County parcel.
Utilities: All utilities available from Elmira Road.
A- I
i
W
Zoning: Mixed zoning;district boundary lines not necessarily related to parcel
boundaries.
• Elmira Road frontage is B-5 Service Business permitting a variety of
residential,commercial and vehicle related businesses.
• Backland is largely FW-1 Floodway Zone which does not allow structures
but permits general farming,recreation and off-street parking.
• One small area set back from Elmira Road at the city boundary is zoned I- 06
1 Industrial which prohibits dwellings but provides for the widest variety
of industrial and commercial uses permitted by the zoning ordinance. '
Adjacent Uses: * North: Wooded areas along Cayuga Inlet and Negundo Woods.
• East: Flood control levee and the mixed-use business strip characteristic of
Elmira Road.
• South: Mixed residential and industrial uses;Buttermilk Falls State Park
entrance.
• West: Former railroad right-of-way(city boundary)and wooded area
along Cayuga Inlet. "
Environmental Characteristics:
* Essentially flat and undeveloped;center part used for farming;wooded
scrub growth in southeast corner;drainage ways cross the backlands and
there is good tree growth along the Inlet. '
* Northern half to 213 of the area is a designated floodway which restricts
the construction of buildings.
* High seasonal water table and limited soil bearing capacity. °
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Southwest Area Land Use Study/Plan(1994): Recommends that the area
fronting on Elmira Road be used for commercial purposes and the
floodway land be use as substitute park land for Southwest Park. The
process necessary to secure this substitute parkland is again being pursued
by the city.
* Overall Economic Development Program(1979):Proposed a commercial '
strip about 500 feet deep fronting on Ehnira Road with the rest of the R
parcel being used for Southwest Park relocation.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Suggests auto-oriented commercial
development and light industry along Elmira Road with undeveloped open
land for the floodplain area.
Limitations for Future Use
* Multiple ownership could make land assembly difficult or expensive.
* Petroleum storage and distribution operation occupies a central location
and establishes a visual ambiance that could negatively affect
development potential of adjacent land.
* Petroleum area might have 'Brownfield"pollution characteristics that
would involve expensive environmental remediation.
* Floodway restrictions limit future development on much of the area even
if the city's substitute park land initiative is not completed.
A -2
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Several hundred feet of frontage along Elmira Road offers good access
opportunities and visibility.
* Additional industrial/commercial development on this land would be
compatible with existing neighborhood characteristics.
* City owns several acres in the developable portion of the area.
* If privately owned parcels could be assembled and cleared the area could
be developed as a 12 to 15 acre industrial park or commercial complex.
* A strong commercial/industrial development presence would be a visually
effective terminus of the Elmira Road commercial strip.
* The substitute parkland proposed for the backland could be used as an
enhancement for development along Elmira Road.
* Parcels along Elmira Road are irregular in shape but are large enough to
permit substantial development to occur on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
• Existing petroleum operation creates a strong aesthetic statement that
might discourage development of adjacent land.
• Relocation of existing petroleum operation and site clean-up could
become a large site development cost.
• Existing residence would have to be removed.
• Limited bearing capability of the soil requires light buildings or special
construction techniques.
• Proximity to recognized natural resource areas(Buttermilk Falls,Negundo
Woods)could provoke substantial public opposition to many land uses.
Plausible Choices: I. Individual privately owned lots to be developed for various commercial
purposes in response to market demand.
2. Assemble all parcels under one ownership,remove existing land uses and
redevelop the Elmira Road frontage for commercial or light industrial
purposes.
Recommendation: The city should promote private development as one, or several, large
parcels. The petroleum storage site will require investigation and
possible remediation prior to redevelopment.
A- 3
i
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA B
Location: Northwest of Elmira Road
Area: 54 acres+/-(Southwest Park)plus 7 acres+/-of adjacent City land.
Shape: Essentially rectangular with dimensions which are conducive to development.
Ownership: City of Ithaca
Access: Single point of access from Elmira Road at the southeast corner of the site.
Current Use: Abandoned farmland;northern half of the site has become the city's
storage and disposal site for rubble,construction material and organic
material.
Assessed Value: $410,400
Utilities: Water, sewers, gas and electricity located along Ehnira Road and Meadow
Street and at the Solid Waste facility;would have to be extended into site.
Zoning: P-1 (Public and Institutional)Uses limited to recreation, educational buildings
and public functions.
Adjacent Uses: * North: Conrail switching area and vacant land owned by Weiner.
* East: Large area of vacant land and driving range(Weiner property).
* South: WICKS lumber and County Solid Waste facility.
* West: Conrail mainline track,vacant Weiner land at the end of Cherry
Street and flood control channel.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Essentially flat.
* High seasonal water table; soil has limited bearing capacity.
* Several small man-made wetland areas in southern half. '
* Remnant old-growth flood plain forest along eastern boundary and at
entrance road.
* Substantial bird,deer and small wildlife habitat.
* No rare or scarce plant species observed by Wesley.
Recommendations From Previous Studies: "
* Southwest Area Land Use Study(1994): Study Committee recommended
that this area not be used as park; should be housing or mixed use.
Special focus group suggested commercial as the highest and best use.
North-south and east-west road corridors proposed.
* Overall Economic Development Plan(1979): Proposed that this site be
made available for future industrial uses.
* The Ithaca General Plan (1971): Recommended recreational use.
Limitations for Future Use:
* City's use as convenient spoil and storage site. ,.
A -4
• High water table with attendant drainage problems.
• Single point of access from major street.
• Small wetland areas scattered in southern half of site.
• Previous recommendation for use as housing site.
• Future use could involve extended alienation process.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* City owned--no acquisition costs and city can determine future use.
* Large parcel is dividable into a variety of lot sizes.
* Suitable for a variety of nonresidential uses.
* Limited rail service could be provided.
* Mitigation of environmental concerns appears to be possible.
* Future nonresidential development compatible with adjacent land uses and
surrounding neighborhood.
* Could be combined with other large undeveloped parcels on the east.
* Necessary zoning changes will probably trigger an EIS which can be
considered as one way to partially pre-approve the site for future uses.
Future Use Potential--Negative Characteristics:
* Loss of open space,natural areas and wildlife habitat.
* Loss of city storage and disposal area.
* Loss of potential housing sites(assuming residential uses in this area are
considered to be suitable and viable).
* Need to address existing wetland conditions and surface water drainage
problems.
* Cost of cleaning up site.
* Limited bearing capability of the soil requires light buildings or special
construction techniques.
* Possibility of public opposition depending on future use.
* Future use limited to recreation until alienation process is
completed.
Plausible Choices: 1. Leave as is and continue present use.
2. Develop for park and recreation purposes.
3. Planned development area for housing or a mix of housing and
commercial uses.
4. Planned development area for industrial/commercial uses.
5. Combine with adjacent vacant parcels to create an extensive fully
serviced industrial/commercial development complex.
Recommendation: Open space or housing can not be considered optimal future uses of a
strategic parcel located in a heavily commercialized section of the city.
Choices 4 and 5 will help achieve economic development objectives by
producing maximum opportunity for job creation and increased tax revenue.
In any case, a zoning change should be made to assure that desired future land
uses can be encouraged and inappropriate uses avoided.
A- 5
i
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA C
Location: North of Elmira Road,between Southwest Park and the relief channel.
Area: Four separate tax parcels with a total area of approximately 57 acres.
Shape: Generally rectangular;dimensions are conducive to development.
Ownership: All parcels privately owned--one owner.
Access: Access from the south possible through miniature golf/driving range area
fronting on Elmira Road.Access from Clinton Street on the north through
Nate's Floral Estates mobile home park.
Current Use: Frontage on Elmira Road is used for recreation and as a site for an office
trailer;backlands are vacant.
Assessed Value: $1,591,500.
Utilities: Full complement of utilities available on Elmira Road.
Zoning: Southern third of this area,with Elmira Road frontage, is zoned B-5 (Service
Business)which permits a wide variety of commercial and residential land
uses. Remainder of the area is MH-1 (Mobile Home)which permits only
mobile home parks and sales areas. (Zoning amendment is currently under ,
consideration by the city).
Adjacent Uses: * North:Nates Floral Estates mobile home park.
* East: Inlet relief channel and large commercial establishments including
auto dealerships and the K-Mart and Tops plazas. w
* South: Fast food and other auto-oriented commercial establishments
fronting on Elmira Road.
* West: Southwest Park and other city-owned land.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Essentially flat.
* Scrub and small tree cover through the center and along the Southwest
Park boundary which contains a remnant area of old growth forest. „
* Northern portion of this area formerly used as an open dump site.
* Electric transmission line passes from east to west through the center of
the area.
* High seasonal water table; soils have limited bearing capacity.
* Habitat for some small bird and wildlife species;none known to be rare or
endangered.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Southwest Area Land Use Study(1994):Recommends that this area be
used for commercial purposes with a major new street(the Southwest
A - 6
Connector)passing from east to west through the area connecting
Meadow Street with Floral Avenue.
* Overall Economic Development Plan(1979): Proposed commercial
development of the southern half of this parcel and mobile home use for
the rest of the parcel.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Suggests that land along Elmira Road
remain commercial;backlands adjacent to Southwest Park are suggested
as high density residential development. The area between this high
density residential site and West Clinton Street(current location of Nate's
Floral Estates)was recommended for warehousing and other industrial
development.Also proposes a Southwest Parkway between Meadow
Street and Floral Avenue.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Access from the existing street system(Meadow Street and Elmira Road)
is poor or non-existent.
* Former city dump land would require remedial clean-up or neutralizing.
This affects, at a minimum,the northern third to half of this area.
* Current zoning for much of this area restricts development to mobile home
parks and related activities.
* High water table with attendant drainage problems.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Has the appropriate size and shape to accommodate a variety of land uses
including large scale industrial and commercial development.
* Could efficiently be subdivided into a variety of lot sizes.
* Could easily be combined with Southwest Park and other city-owned land
to create a potential development area larger than K-Mart, Tops and
Wegman's plazas combined.
* Has the potential for good vehicular access from both Elmira Road and
Meadow Street. Could also be easily connected to Southwest Park's future
road system.
* Future use for industrial and commercial purposes would fit well into the
surrounding neighborhood.
* Site could be effectively buffered from adjacent mobile home park.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Clean up of former dump site could add significantly to development costs
for any future land uses except continued open space.
* Potential for gas emissions from former dump site.
* Area is remote for businesses that want high visibility.
* Limited bearing capacity of the soil requires light buildings or special
construction techniques.
Plausible Choices: 1. Retain existing zoning designation and promote additional mobile home
residential development after site clean up.
2. Amend zoning and encourage industrial/commercial development, ideally
in combination with Southwest Park.
Recommendation: Housing should not be considered the optimal future use of this large area.
Development in conjunction with Southwest Park for industrial or commercial
purposes will most benefit the local economy by creating jobs and increasing
A - 7
i
tax revenues. '°
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA D
Location: East side of flood control channel and immediately south of the Cherry Street
industrial park.
Area: Three parcels with a total area of approximately 8.3 acres.
Shape: Elongated quadrilateral approximately 1,200 feet from north to south;width
of parcel varies from about 490 feet on the north to 250 feet on the south. This
parcel is similar in size and shape to Carpenter Park and the Community
Garden.
Ownership: Privately owned by one owner.
Access: No access at present.Future access possible by extending Cherry Street.
Current Use: Vacant
Assessed Value: $218,000
Utilities: Electric power lines adjacent to the parcel;other utilities now present in the
Cherry Street industrial park.
Zoning: I-1 (Industrial)Permits a wide variety of commercial and industrial uses.
Adjacent Uses:* North: Cherry Street Industrial Park.
* East: Conrail mainline and marshalling yard.
* South: One small privately owned parcel,city boundary and State of New
York(Finger Lakes Park)between city line and fish ladder.
* West: Flood control channel.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Essentially flat with an undulating ground surface.
* Scrub and small tree cover especially on northern half.
* Two areas of standing water totaling about 1/2 acre on south end of parcel.
Possibly created by settlement or top soil removal.
* Seasonally high water table; soil has limited bearing capacity.
* Evidence of deer and small wildlife and bird species.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
• Southwest Area Land Use Study(1994): Recommends that the "industrial
development along Cheery Street should continue.... served by an
extended Cherry Street cul-de-sac." (pg.45)
• Overall Economic Development Plan(1979): Proposed industrial
A- 8
development for this parcel as an extension of the then-proposed Cherry
Street industrial park.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): This parcel is part of a larger area
recommended for industrial development, including the Cherry Street
Industrial Park.
Limitations for Future Use:
* The elongated,progressively narrowing shape of this site will restrict the
number and size of new lots that could be created.
* Parcel width is further reduced by a strip of future park land
approximately 70 feet wide running full length along the Flood Control
channel.An extended Cherry Street will require another 50 to 65 feet of
right-of-way width.
* Small ponding areas will require filling if the southern third of the parcel
is to be developed.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Easily accessible by extending Cherry Street.
* Full service infrastructure available from the north.
* Adjacent to an industrial park with established neighborhood character.
* Potential for limited rail service if required.
* Could provide two or three moderate sized sites for prospective
developers.
* Recommended for industrial development in previous studies.
* Adjacent park strip has the potential of becoming a significant amenity for
future users of this parcel.
* Locating Cherry Street extension adjacent to the park strip would further
enhance the feeling of openness offered by this parcel.
* Potentially a very attractive setting for small to mid-sized
industrial/research businesses near the water.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Limited or no development value unless Cherry Street is extended.
* Parcel's progressively narrowing shape limits the size and number of new
development lots that could be created.
* Will require major capital expense for infrastructure to serve a relatively
small number of lots.
* Limited bearing capability of the soil requires light buildings or special
building techniques.
* Ponded water in two locations near parcel's southern boundary.
* Street connection to developable land east of the railroad is probably not
an option as long as the railroad is in operation.
Plausible Choices: 1. Development to be determined by market, zoning and current ownership.
2. Property owner and city collaborate to extend infrastructure and promote
parcel for light industrial or research uses.
3. City acquires parcel,extends infrastructure and markets the area as one or
more partially pre-approved sites.
A - 9
i
Recommendation: Land acquisition and infrastructure costs per sq.ft. of developable land could
be high on this parcel. Even so, it makes sense as a future development area
and choices 2 or 3 would be appropriate. An important question for the city to
review is whether or not the investment needed to make this site viable could
produce more immediate results if invested in another area.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA E
Location: Between the east bank of Cayuga Inlet and the Conrail track;from Court
Street on the south to Ithaca College boathouse on the north.
Area: 4.5 acres
Shape: Long(1,200 ft.+/-)and narrow(50 ft.to 140 ft.+/-);not conducive to many
kinds of development.
Ownership: Northern half. Cornell University
Southern half. Cayuga Inlet Development Corporation
Access: Public access from an extension of West Court Street.
Current Use: Site is mainly undeveloped but informal picnic facilities are located on the
southern half.A narrow board walk has been constructed in the inlet and boat
docking occurs during boating season. F'
Assessed Value: Northern half $398,700. Southern half: $315,700.
Utilities: Sewer line runs the length of the site;water, gas and electricity easily
available.
Zoning: M-1 (Marine Commercial)Some commercial and manufacturing uses
permitted as well as a variety of residential uses. Desired uses are those that
would benefit from a waterside location.
Adjacent Uses: * North: Ithaca College and Cornell crew boathouses.
* East: Conrail mainline track;warehousing,fabrication and service
businesses.
* South: Waterside restaurant,beer distributor.
* West: Cayuga Inlet; marina facilities.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Essentially flat. ,„
* Scattered tree growth; some large,fast growing species
* Southern portion of this area has been mowed and a dirt lane goes through
it.Northern portion has dense scrub growth.
* Inlet shoreline is moderately eroded.
* Seasonally high water table; soils have limited bearing capacity.
A-• 10
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Tompkins County Waterfront Plan(1997): Suggests possibility of
specialty retail shops,restaurants&outdoor cafes. Illustrations show
dense development with a lighted boardwalk at water's edge as part of an
Inlet Trail system.
* Cayuga Inlet and Island Redevelopment Project(1982): Suggests that the
southern half of the parcel be used for rental townhouses with
private docks and a small park.Northern half is open space or additional
marina activities.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Suggests recreation and a green way
along the water with warehousing on the rest of the site.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Narrow width greatly restricts development opportunities.
* Single point of public access.(Note: Additional access would be possible
by extending Cascadilla Street.)
* Land sale conditions of current owners and existing docking facilities
might become obstacles for potential developers.
* Seasonally high watertable; soils have limited bearing capacity.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Waterside location would be appealing for some uses.
* Symbiotic relationship with Inlet Island. Attractiveness of this parcel will
be enhanced if future development on the Island occurs as proposed.
* Adjacent waterside uses to north, south and west create a distinctive
ambience and environment.
* Long sections of shoreline with only two owners provide good
opportunities for public/private water access.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Close proximity to Conrail track.
* Narrowness of parcel makes it difficult to accommodate new structures,
related parking,vehicular access and a public trail.
* Commercial/warehouse character of adjacent areas might be considered
incompatible with some types of land use.
* Current visual character of building facades on the west side of the inlet
does not provide an attractive ambiance.
Plausible Choices: 1. Development to be determined by market,zoning and current ownership.
2. Promote commercial/marina development with public access along the
shoreline.
3. Promote relatively dense townhouse development or mixed housing and
commercial.
4. Secure easement to assure public access through the site.
Recommendation: A strip of 2 or 3 story townhouses facing the inlet would provide an attractive
housing option and minimize potential access and parking problems on this
narrow parcel. This area provides an important link in the proposed shoreline
trail system and a public walkway should be included in any future
development.
A- 11
i
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA F
w
Location: East side of Cayuga Inlet between Farmer's Market and Cornell boat house.
Area: 8.5 acres+\-
Shape: Roughly rectangular;approximately 520'x700;conducive to development.
Ownership: State of New York
Access: Single point of access from Third Street.
Current Use: Location of State Department of Transportation office facility,vehicle garage
and materials storage yard. Several large buildings and salt storage dome
located on property.No longer functions as DOT regional office.
Assessed Value: Land $1,559,700 Total $4,198,500
Utilities: Full complement of utilities at the site.
Zoning: M-1 (Marine Commercial) Permits broad range of commercial,retail and
residential uses as well as industrial uses related to marine activities and
businesses. The objective of M-1 district is to provide a beneficial atmosphere
for marine uses.
Adjacent Uses: * North: Farmer's Market and sewer plant.
* East: Andree Petroleum,Conrail,Carpenter Park,Route 13.
* South: Andree Petroleum, lagoon, Conrail, CU boat house.
* West: Cayuga Inlet,Cass Park.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Built up--light industrial character.
* Strip of city-owned land along waterline on west and south sides.
* High power transmission line east of Conrail railroad line; petroleum
storage tanks visible beyond Conrail line.
* Limited landscaping but good vegetative buffer to the north.
* Buildings appear to be in good structural condition.
* Former DOT activities and nearby fuel storage operation might have
contaminated the soil in this general area.
A- 12
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Ithaca Waterway Study(1976): South end of parcel to remain a State DOT
facility;high density housing proposed for the northern end; city DPW
storage yard(now the location of the Farmer's Market)proposed as a
boatel site.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Envisioned a continuation of current
State DOT use.
* Tompkins County Waterfront Plan(1997): Recommends the relocation of
the DoT facility and proposes waterfront commercial development.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Petroleum business,Conrail,power line, industrial park and sewer
plant in the immediate area could affect marketability for resort,
tourism or residential uses.
* Site's natural attractiveness for water-related uses is largely seasonal.
* High seasonal watertable; low soil bearing capability.
* Site might be polluted by current and adjacent land use.
* Potentially high site development costs.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Publicly owned.
* Site is bordered by a city-owned strip along the Inlet.
* Seasonally attractive location adjacent to Inlet,Farmer's Market and
Cornell/Ithaca College boat houses.
* Potential for public walkway along water as well as more
intensive nonpublic development on the remainder of the parcel.
* Direct access from Route 13 and, seasonally,from the Inlet.
* Currently zoned to permit water related uses.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Cost of site acquisition and DOT relocation.
* Adjacent incompatible land uses to the east.
* Possibility of odors at times from waste water
treatment plant.
* Relatively remote location does not offer high visibility.
* Noise and lights from Cass Park could deter some developers.
* Possible need for environmental clean-up.
* Limited bearing capacity of the soil requires light buildings or special
construction techniques.
* Water side location could provoke public opposition to some future land
uses.
Plausible Choices: 1. Continue with current use and encourage DOT to improve shore line
access and landscaping.
2. Work with DOT to relocate its operation and transfer ownership to the
county or city. Find more appropriate private and/or public uses for this
unique waterfront site.
3. Consider this site as part of a larger unified development area. Consider
eventual relocation of the petroleum business and review Carpenter Park
development guidelines to promote future use compatibility for this entire
area.
Recommendation: State DOT use of this water side site is no longer necessary or appropriate.
A - 13
i
W
Relatively intensive commercial use,possibly related to tourism and
conferences with boat acccess,would be most beneficial for the city and
county economy. The county and city should,therefore,join forces to secure
this site and establish guidelines for future development. Guidelines should
include some opportunity for public access to the shoreline.In the long run,
an overall plan for development of this entire area(Choice 3, above)would be
highly beneficial but a major reuse program for the DOT site would be a
major initial accomplishment.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA G
Location: East side of Willow Avenue immediately south of the city's public works
facility.
Area: 2.5 acres+/-
Shape: Generally rectangular,roughly 500'x 200',well suited for development of a
moderately sized business.
Ownership: City of Ithaca; existing structures currently leased to small construction
businesses.
Access: From Route 13 via Willow Avenue.
Current Use: Small residential structure on the west end is used as office space.A large
barn behind the house is used for storage and light fabrication. The western
half of the parcel is also used for scattered storage of construction material,
vehicles,boats, etc.;the eastern half is vacant.
Assessed Value: Land: $145,000. Total: $194,200.
Utilities: Full complement of utilities available on Willow Avenue.
Zoning: Parcel appears to be bisected by a district boundary with P-1 (Public and
Institutional)on the north and I-1 (Industrial)on the south. If this is so,the
less restrictive I-1 regulations would extend 30 feet into the P-1 zone.
Adjacent Uses: This parcel is located in small mixed use area that has been densely developed
and has been in transition in recent years.
* North: City Public Works garage and storage yards, Public Transit offices
and garage,Newman Golf Course.city has recently built a new off-season
storage facility in this area.
* East: Conrail track and Route 13.
* South: Several small industrial or commercial facilities, a former
Montessori School and a vacant nightclub.
* West: Boat storage and repair;marina.
A - 14
Environmental Characteristics:
* Site is part of a flat,densely developed and intensively used area that is
largely built up.
* Municipal transit and public works facilities,and marina storage and
repair yards establish the dominant character of this area.
* The site of interest varies in character from older, somewhat deteriorated
structures and random outside storage on the west end to open,unused
land on the east.
* About half the site is currently vacant.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Consolidation and Site Analysis Plan for City's Department of Public
Works(1995): Considers the feasibility of consolidating public works at
the Willow Avenue/Pier Road location and includes a plan for this.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Parcel is part of a larger area
recommended for a mixed recreational and commercial development.
Limitations for Future Use:
* City's consolidation plan, although informal at this time, largely precludes
other development on this site.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* City ownership.
* Site has potential for more intensive development.
* Size,shape and accessibility would permit relatively easy development.
* Could possibly be subdivided to accommodate city needs as well as
private development opportunity.Note: city has recently agreed to make a
strip running along the eastern boundary of this site available for use by
an adjacent industry.
* Relatively direct access to Route 13 via Willow Avenue.
* Potential for good visibility from Route 13 traffic.
* Industrial/commercial development would be compatible with existing
neighborhood.
* More intensive commercial/industrial use could be accomplished
relatively quickly.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Limited room to expand a growing private business especially if part of
the lot is to continue to be used by the city DPW.
* Public works outdoor materials storage area might not be compatible with
"image objectives" of some private businesses who might consider this
site.
Plausible Choices: 1. Follow the city's consolidation plan including the relocation of the Water
and Sewer Division's facility on First Street.
2. Rethink the city's plan, do not relocate the Water and Sewer Division, and
try to make either the entire Willow Avenue site,or the western half,
available for private industrial/commercial development.
Recommendation: Private development potential on this site is limited by its size. The city
A- 15
i
should complete its relocation plan for public works and make the First
Street/Franklin Street parcels available for development. (See also Analysis
Area H).
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA H
Location: Southeast of Route 13 and west of First Street with frontage on Franklin and "
First Streets.
Area: Two parcels and 300 feet of Franklin Street right-of-way separating them have
a combined area of approximately 3.5 acres.
Shape: Irregular boundary. One parcel triangular,the other roughly square.
Combined,parcels are generally rectangular with dimensions of
approximately 300'x 440'. Shape conducive to development.
Ownership: City of Ithaca
Access: From Route 13 via Third and Franklin Streets.
Current Use: The triangular Franklin Street parcel is used for equipment and materials '
storage;the First Street parcel is the DPW Water and Sewer Division's office
and storage area.Both parcels contain buildings that were built for their
public works functions. Water and Sewer site has large, open storage and
truck maneuvering yard.
Assessed Value: Franklin Street: $1,032,300. First Street: $1,259,000. "
Utilities: Full complement of utilities available to this area.
Zoning: Franklin Street: B-2a(General Business)Permits a variety of retail,personal
services,food,entertainment and housing including motels.
First Street: P-1 (Public&Institutional)Permitted uses limited to public
recreation,educational institutional uses and municipal functions.
Adjacent Uses: These parcels are located in a small area of mixed uses on the edge of a
residential neighborhood.
* North: Route 13,Aldi's Market, sewer plant.
* East: Sciencenter and recently completed Mutual Housing complex.
* South: Mixed uses including housing,day care center, and Hancock Plaza
(commercial/office).
* West: Bowling alley,restaurant,retail and personal services.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Site is part of a flat area that has been established for many years as a mix
of commercial,residential and municipal uses.
* Public works activities of 40 years ago were bisected by construction of
A- 16
Route 13,creating disjointed city operation.
* Limited amount of vegetation.
* Area now in transition from public works activities to business and
educational uses with a new housing component.
* Aesthetics of the area reflect the public works heritage and the industrial
character this conveys; changes are occurring due to Sciencenter and
Mutual Housing.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Northside Design Study(1990): Recently adopted by Council,this study
recommends city-owned land in this area be used for commercial
purposes.
* The Ithaca General Plan (1971): Suggests continued municipal utility use
for this general area.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Currently used for a major public works function which would have to be
relocated.
* Existing structures would have limited reuse potential for many
commercial uses.
* A portion of Franklin Street separates this area into two distinct parcels.
* Safe vehicular access from Route 13.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* If combined,parcels would be of appropriate size and shape to allow for
significant commercial or industrial development.
* City already taking steps to vacate building on the triangular parcel.
* Excellent visibility from Route 13.
* Would be suitable for a variety of new uses that would be compatible with
the mixed character of the adjoining neighborhood.
* Sciencenter,Mutual Housing,restaurant and shopping add amenity to a
location in this area.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Development costs could be high due to city investment in public works
facilities.
* Access problems from Route 13 are significant and should be solved.
* Triangular shape of Franklin Street parcel prevents efficient
redevelopment possibilities, especially if the public street is continued and
the parcels are not combined into one.
Plausible Choices: 1. Pursue DPW consolidation plan,move Water and Sewer Division to
Willow Avenue and combine parcels by vacating Franklin Street right-of-
way. (See Analysis Area G)
2. Move Water and Sewer activities,retain Franklin Street and have two
potential redevelopment parcels.
3. Keep water and sewer activities where they now are and make triangular
piece available for redevelopment.
Recommendation: The city should either proceed with DPW consolidation or make Willow
Street site(Area G)available for development. If consolidation is pursued,the
A- 17
i
redevelopment potential along Franklin Street would be enhanced.In addition
to a decision on consolidation,there should also be a traffic study to
determine if part of Franklin Street can be vacated and how the Franklin
Street,Third Street, Route 13 interchange can be improved.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA I
Location: East side of Cayuga Inlet from the north side of State Street to the south side
of Buffalo Street.
Area: Four small parcels ranging from 23,000 sq.ft.to 4,750 sq.ft.with a total area k
of 1.25 acres
Shape: All parcels are rectangular and narrow;three are developed.
Ownership: Different owner for each parcel
Access: From adjacent streets(W. State,W. Seneca and W.Buffalo)
Current Use: One parcel currently used for storage of old vehicles and miscellaneous
discarded building material;others used for commercial purposes; storage on
second floor of one building.
Assessed Value: Ranges from$50,000 to$450,000 with total value of$960,000.
Utilities: Full complement of utilities available in this area.
Zoning: M-1 (Marine Commercial)for area north of Buffalo Street. Desired uses are
those that would benefit from a waterside location.
B-4(Service Business)for rest of parcel. Permits a variety of business and
residential uses including gas station and motor vehicle storage, sales and
service.Also permits service commercial uses including printing,welding and
plumbing.
Adjacent Uses: * North: Restaurant and beverage distributor.
* East: Bus station, branch bank, food market,parking lots.
* South: Lumber yard, labor union office south of State Street.
* West: Cayuga Inlet and various commercial businesses.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Mostly built up with structures on three lots. °
* Physical deterioration, dilapidation or sub-optimal land use in parts of this
area.
* Sheet piling defines inlet and forms hard edge in places.
* Little or no relationship between existing uses and waterfront.
* Seasonally high water table; soils have limited bearing capacity.
A- 18
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
• Tompkins County Waterfront Plan(1997): Area north of Buffalo Street
suggested as specialty retail and dining uses with a connecting boardwalk
for public use as part of Inlet Trail..
• Cayuga Inlet and Island Redevelopment Project(1982): Suggested retail
development for area north of Buffalo Street with orientation to water.
• The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Recommended that the area north of
Buffalo Street be developed to "exploit unique water-oriented character."
Land south of Buffalo Street was included as part of the general West End
commercial area.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Multiple private ownership.
* Three of four lots contain occupied structures at present.
* Lots are small and narrow even if combined.
* Seasonally high watertable; soils have limited bearing capability.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Symbiotic relationship with Inlet Island. Future use could be greatly
enhanced if development proposed for the Island is realized.
* Area between State and Seneca Streets could become an attractive and
functional component of a redeveloped bus station/bank/commercial
complex.
* Area north of Buffalo Street could become a major contributor to the
proposed waterfront development along the Inlet.
* Good vehicular access to all lots.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Individual lots are small and narrow with limited opportunity to expand.
* Assembling land by combining lots might be difficult.
* Limited space for off-street parking unless agreements with neighbors can
be reached.
* Adjacent land uses to the east and west do not provide a visually attractive
development character.
* Lot acquisition and assembly costs could be high.
Plausible Choices: 1. Let market forces and zoning determine future use and character.
2. Modify zoning to increase the potential for development compatibility
with Inlet Island.
3. Concentrate development efforts on those areas with high reuse potential,
i.e., between State and Seneca Streets.
Recommendation: The current use and condition of much of this area is not compatible with
development objectives for Inlet Island but modification of the area might be
difficult.Efforts should be focused on zoning changes and on promoting the
unified redevelopment of lots adjacent to the bus station and branch bank,
possibly combining all lots in this block into one development parcel.
A- 19
i
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA J (Carpenter Park)
Location: Northwest of Route 13 at Third Street Extension.
Area: Total area of approximately 8.5 acres including road, Community Gardens
and power line right-of-way.Net developable area of about 4.5 acres. City has
approved a hypothetical subdivision into several smaller lots to show how
land might be divided. `
Shape: Roughly rectangular.
Ownership: City of Ithaca and Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency.
Access: From Route 13 via Third Street Extension and Carpenter Circle(built .
specifically to serve this site).
Current Use: Approximately 1/4 of the gross area is used as a community garden;2
additional acres used as power line right-of-way;rest is vacant.
Assessed Value: Total assessed value of useable portion is$561,600.
Utilities: All utilities available at this site.
Zoning: I-1 (Industrial)Permits a wide variety of commercial and industrial uses.
Adjacent Uses: * North: Farmer's Market;wastewater treatment plant; commercial
establishments.
• East: Route 13;mixed commercial, industrial and service activities(no
access to Elmira Road)..
• South:Light industry and warehousing; commercial.
• West: Conrail track;petroleum storage;NYS highway facility;Cornell
boathouse; Cayuga Inlet.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Essentially flat with very limited tree cover.
* Highly visible from Route 13.
* Tall high voltage transmission lines pass over Community Gardens and
along the west side of this parcel.
* Character of surrounding neighborhood established by utility uses, light
industry,warehousing and stand-alone retail commercial land uses.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* The Ithaca General Plan (1971)suggests that this parcel would be
developed for industrial purposes.
Limitations for Future Use:
* City restrictions on land use(industrial only)and ownership(lease only)
A-20
limit the potential for development.
* Usable portion of parcel is approximately 1/3 the size of Cherry Street
Industrial Park and could accommodate only 2 or 3 small businesses.
* Site too small and isolated to create the feeling of an "industrial park."
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* High visibility from highway would be appealing for some types of land
use,especially retail commercial.
* Site fully improved and ready for development.
* No obstacles anticipated in previous environmental impact study.
* City investment in site improvements has created a physically attractive
setting.
* Adjacent land use has established this area as suitable for a variety of
industry,business and service uses.
* Located in an area that will most likely generate additional development
interest in the future.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Community Gardens could be seen as an incompatible neighbor by
prospective industrial or commercial developers.
* Although access is relatively direct,the parcel appears to be isolated.
* Area may be seen as too visible and public for many small industries.
* Electric power lines create a negative visual statement and limit land use
under them.
* Passing trains create ground vibrations that could interfere with some
types of research or manufacturing activities.
Plausible Choices: 1. Continue current policy and wait for the development climate in this part
of the city to change.
2. Modify city restrictions so that land can be used for commercial as well as
industrial purposes.
3. Sell land and allow future use to be determined by zoning.
Recommendation: The city's desire to retain ownership of this parcel is probably less a limitation
to development than the industrial use requirement. In addition to industry,
office uses and some types of retail development would be appropriate.
Current IURA restrictions should be modified to permit these possibilities.
The city could then lease or sell this land for the type of development that
seems most suited to the desired future character of this entire area. (See also
Analysis Area F)
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA K
Location: 205 -207 Lake Street(Gun Shop Hill)overlooking Ithaca Falls and Fall
Creek.
Area: Several separate lots totalling approximately 5 acres. Existing structure has an
A- 21
i
area of approximately 100,000 sq.ft.
Shape: Roughly square
Ownership: State Street Associates(SSA and Cornell own one parcel;two additional
parcels next to Fall Creek are owned by Cornell.
�t
Access: Lake Street
Current Use: Formerly the Ithaca Gun factory,now vacant.
Assessed Value: $361,600;Cornell parcels, $64,300
Utilities: All utilities available at the site.
Zoning: I-1 (Industrial). Permits industry,warehousing,wholesaling and all
commercial and service uses.Residences not permitted.
Adjacent Uses: * North:Fall Creek Gorge and Ithaca Falls.
* East: Housing
* South: Gun Hill apartments and other residences.
* West: Steep wooded bank down to Fall Creek neighborhood. °
Environmental Characteristics:
* Relatively isolated parcel located near the top of a steep hillside.
* Imposing but old industrial structures dominate the visual environment.
* Central section terraced into parking lots for adjacent Gun Hill
apartments.
* Although factory was built to capitalize on waterpower, current
relationship between this parcel and Fall Creek is nonfunctional.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971). Indicated that the industrial use should be
continued.
Limitations for Future Use:
* This rambling collection of older buildings was constructed and has
evolved for manufacturing purposes and would be difficult and expensive
to convert.
* Terms of the current agreement between owner and city,as part of Gun
Hill apartment development,preclude use for student housing,hotel or
retail commercial space, including restaurant.
* Providing additional parking on this site.Existing parking on this site is
committed to Gun Hill apartments.
* Building in poor condition according to Building Department
observations.
* Demolition of heavy industrial construction could be expensive. +
* Potential "brownfield" pollution characteristics from many years of gun
manufacturing.
p,
A-22
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Commanding site overlooking Fall Creek and the lake.
* Proximity to Cornell campus.
* Adjacent to attractive apartment complexes which establish the high-
density character of this area.
* Smoke stack is an established landmark on the Ithaca skyline.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Existing industrial construction could be difficult and expensive to
convert to other uses.
* The cost of demolishing heavy industrial construction and cleaning up the
site could make reuse for most purposes infeasible.
* Spaces are large and not easily adaptable to other uses.
* Additional parking on this site could be difficult to provide.
* Existing structure needs attention to prevent further deterioration.
* Potential reuse could be affected if this structure is determined to have
historic significance.
Plausible Choices: 1. Stabilize building and search for a suitable light industrial use.
2. Remove all existing buildings that would be impractical to rehabilitate and
convert remaining buildings into offices or nonstudent housing.
3. Clear site and build an office complex or new up-scale apartments.
4. Clear site and use for neighborhood open space.
Recommendations: This dramatic site would appear to have strong redevelopment potential but
costs and other limitations might outweigh the opportunities.An engineering
analysis would indicate what parts of the existing buildings could be
effectively rehabilitated and what should be removed. Light industry or
distinctive offices could be effective uses of existing floor space; for new
construction, apartments,townhouses or office suites would also fit into this
historic environment if suitable parking could be provided. The City's ability
to affect the disposition of this site is limited at present.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA L(Wilcox Press Site)
Location: Bottom of East State Street hill,adjacent to Six-Mile Creek.
Area: One large parcel of approximately 2.3 acres; 2 smaller parcels along Six-Mile
Creek totalling approximately 1/2 acre.
Shape: Long and narrow(roughly 870'x 150')with an apparent public easement or
right-of-way running part way along the length;this shape restricts
development opportunities.
Ownership: Wilcox Press,Inc.
Access: Very restricted; access is from State Street around the Dickinson warehouse
building(Tompkins County Museum)at the parcel's westernmost end.
A- 23
i
Current Use: Vacant building(60,000 sq.ft.+/-)formerly used as a printing plant.
Assessed Value: Large parcel: $325,000; smaller parcels: $132,400.
*
Utilities: All utilities available at the site.
Zoning: B-4(Service Business). Permits a wide range of commercial, service, light
industrial, office and residential activities.including apartment, gas station,
motor vehicle sales and service, printing,plumbing, heating and similar shop.
Ow
Adjacent Uses: * North: Large State Street hill retaining wall and several detached older houses
used as apartments.
• East: Steep bank of Six.-Mile Creek;additional apartment house
development.
• South: Six-Mile Creek and its steep bank;the backs of houses fronting on
Hudson Street.
• West: Mixed use Dickinson Building and three small restaurants.
Environmental Characteristics:
* Site is flat and occupied by rambling large and small structures that have
an industrial character.
* Totally confined by the creek, high State Street retaining wall,housing
along State Street and a multi-story warehouse.
* Previous industrial uses are not in character with the surroundings. .
* Area is physically and visually isolated from the urban activities around it.
* Six-Mile Creek and its wooded banks provide a dramatic natural setting in
complete contrast with the adjacent central business district.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Site specific studies from time to time have suggested housing as a
suitable reuse for this site.
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971): Indicated that the then-industrial uses be
continued.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Remote location and severe access and parking problems.
* Narrow,elongated shape limits suitability for many uses.
* Site almost totally occupied by an accumulation of buildings built to ..
accommodate the needs of a large printing business.
* Possible "brownfield"pollution characteristics from many years use as an
industrial printing operation.Phase I Environmental Assessment found no
problems,however.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
• Located in a dramatic environmental setting.
• Proximity to the downtown business district.
• Although narrow,parcel is large enough for a significant redevelopment
A -24
project.
* Some of the existing buildings might be rehabilitated for specific uses.
* Apparent easement or right-of-way across the site offers the potential for
public pedestrian access from downtown to the Six-Mile Creek
Wildflower Preserve.
* Potential for upper level access from higher up State Street hill might
provide unique redevelopment opportunities.
* Might be combined with adjacent multi-story warehouse to provide a high
density mixed-use development opportunity.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Existing industrial construction would require demolition and removal for
many new uses.
* Potentially expensive site demolition and clean-up costs could affect
redevelopment feasibility.
* Access and parking problems will be difficult if not impossible to solve
satisfactorily.
Plausible Choices: 1. Public ownership and use.Remove most existing buildings and provide
park facility with exceptional access opportunities to the Six-Mile Creek
gorge.
2. Apply for a grant or loan to facilitate private-sector acquisition of parcel
and removal of all structures not suitable for reuse as upscale housing or
specialized commercial reuse such as professional offices,boutiques,
crafts,entertainment or a mix of such uses.
3. Convert existing buildings into some type of light industrial, fabrication,
assembly or high technology operation.
Recommendation: This site is both highly appealing and highly problematic. It has great but very
specialized reuse potential and seems a natural for private sector development
that would complement and contribute to activities in the downtown. An
innovative business,high-end housing or a mix of housing and business
would be the best reuse.Most likely some form of subsidy for site cleanup
will be needed to improve feasibility.Public pedestrian movement into Six-
Mile Creek gorge should be secured. The city's ability to affect the disposition
of this site is limited at present.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA M
Location: South Aurora Street(Rt. 96B). Building 24 is part of the Emerson Power
Transmission(EPT)facility.
Area: Four story structure with partial basement;total area about 110,000 sq.ft.
Shape: Building is rectangular;dimensions are approximately 370'x 70'.
Ownership: Emerson Power Transmission
Access: Two access driveways from South Aurora Street.
A-25
i
Current Use: Building is currently not part of EPT operation but is being used for storage
and similar purposes on a rental basis.
Assessed Value: Not assessed as a separate parcel.
Utilities: All utilities available at the site.
Zoning: I-1 (Industrial).Permits industry,warehousing,wholesaling, and all
commercial and service uses. Residences are not permitted.
Adjacent Uses: * North: Parking lots and the beginning of Ithaca's South Hill neighborhood.
* East: Single row of detached houses fronting on South Aurora Street; ,
South Hill elementary school playground east of South Aurora Street.
* South: Other land of Emerson Power Transmission.
* West: Main building of Emerson Power Transmission and a steep slope to
the Inlet Valley.
Environmental Characteristics:
* The original building(Morse Chain)was cut into the side of South Hill
and is somewhat isolated but dominates the escarpment in this area.
* Total length of EPT facility is over 1,200 feet; a location several hundred
feet from the road and lower down the slope helps to reduce the visual "*
impact of this large structure.
* Considerable peak hour employee traffic and some truck traffic is
produced on South Aurora Street and Rt. 96B.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* The Ithaca General Plan(1971)acknowledges the continuation of
industrial land use activity in this area.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Narrow,heavily used South Aurora Street affects access and egress from
this site particularly at peak hour traffic periods. `
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Basically sound noncombustible and fully sprinklered structure.
* Large enough to be subdivided if necessary into a number of large and
small independent reuse activities.
* Part of an established and active industrial area.
* Parking,utilities and other support services available.
* Access to this structure, and its exterior appearance, could be improved
relatively easily.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
• Sprinkler system for this building is connected to the system in the main
EPT plant.An independent system would be desirable.
• Dividing the space into smaller segments, if necessary, and providing
handicapped access could be expensive.
A- 26
• Starkly industrial exterior appearance of the building as it presently exists
might not appeal to some potential reuse prospects.
• Ambient noise from adjacent manufacturing operation might be a
deterrent to some reuse activities.
Plausible Choices: 1. Continue cooperative efforts to market space for a variety of new uses.
2. Study in some detail the feasibility of subdividing the space,upgrading the
sprinkler system if necessary and improving the external appearance and
accessibility.
3. Help EPT obtain an incentive grant or low interest loan to undertake
upgrades and improvements identified in the feasibility study.
Recommendation: All three choices are appropriate. Although past attempts to promote reuse of
Building 24 have not been successful,the potential for turning this building into
a viable concentration of job-producing activities has been recognized by TCAD
and the company.Increased effort from the public sector to help Emerson obtain
funding assistance for feasibility studies, rehabilitation, general upgrading and
increased marketing would enhance future use potential. The city's ability to
affect the disposition of this site is limited at present.
SITE EVALUATION: ANALYSIS AREA N
Location: A large irregular area bordered by West Clinton Street, Six-Mile Creek and
the flood control channel.Largely developed.
Area: Between 35 and 40 acres, bisected by the inlet relief channel and the railroad.
Shape: Roughly triangular.
Ownership: Multiple ownership. There are approximately 40 separate lots including four
owned by the city and three by Conrail.
Access: Access to this area can be attained from Brindley Street,Taber Street,Cherry
Street and West Clinton Street.
Current Use: A variety of uses including used car sales and repair, scrap metal processing,
steel services,construction offices,construction storage yard,warehouse
buildings,printing, a beverage distributor, a motel, a church, a health center,
railroad,vacant buildings, vacant land and several small residences.
Assessed Value: Not applicable to this analysis.
Utilities: All utilities available in this area.
Zoning: I-I (Industrial)and P-1 (Public and Institutional). Industrial zone permits all
uses except residences;public zone permits recreation, educational
institutions and municipal facilities.
Adjacent Uses:* North: The backs of structures and land uses located along the north bank of
Six-Mile Creek.
* East: Same as above plus South Meadow Street.
A - 27
i
• South: Wegman's Food Pharmacy,Nate's Floral Estates, Cherry Street
Industrial Park.
• West: Flood control channel.
Environmental Characteristics:
* This is a clear demarcation zone between the "Inlet Island" area to the *°
north and what is described in the city as the"Southwest Area"to the
south, including large food markets,mobile home park and industrial
areas south of Clinton Street.
* The closest thing in Ithaca to a typical "heavy" industrial neighborhood
with the visual characteristics and impressions this land use conveys.
* Contains a conglomeration of land uses with a common developmental
character related to heavy industry,automotive services, construction
businesses,warehouse-type structures,and extensive areas of open land
used for car and truck parking and materials and equipment storage.
* Conveys a visual and physical feeling of random and disjointed
development from an earlier era,older structures and limited site
improvement efforts in most locations.
* Large concrete block and metal storage buildings along Clinton Street
(largest building in the area,with a dominant visual position)is vacant and
currently has the appearance of being abandoned.
* Middle third of this area is undeveloped land with extensive tree cover
and a narrow access point at Clinton Street.
* Existing development makes little or no attempt to use a potential
waterfront amenity.
Recommendations From Previous Studies:
* Southwest Area Land Use Study(1994)recommended a north-south
roadway through the center of this area to connect Taughannock
Boulevard with Elmira Road. This new road was suggested to provide
access to Southwest Park from the north and as a possible alternative to
Meadow Street for some north-south traffic.
* Cayuga Inlet and Island Redevelopment Project(1982). The Taber Street
portion of this parcel proposed for redevelopment for office and craft
activities.Undeveloped lots through the center of the parcel are suggested
as active and passive recreation areas.
* The Ithaca General Plan(197 1)suggested that this area remain in
industriahwarehousing uses. A proposed new Route 13 corridor,
connecting to Fulton Street,crosses the eastern part of this area.
Limitations for Future Use:
* Most of the easily developable lots have buildings on them or are actively
used as parking or vehicle storage areas.
* Some of the large,vacant warehouse or industrial buildings are not easily
adaptable to a variety of new uses.
* Current vehicular access from the north(via Brindley and Taber Streets)is
inadequate to serve a higher intensity of development.
* Most parcels along the flood channel have limited depth and would not be
suitable for many new development opportunities.
* Configuration and width of city-owner land through the center of this
parcel limits opportunity for future road construction.
Future Use Potential-Positive Characteristics:
* Several big parcels are for sale or are under used and could be likely
targets for some types of large scale commercial or industrial
A- 28
redevelopment.
* Land along the flood control channel and future Black Diamond Trail
offers a potential amenity that could benefit some types of development.
* Continued public and private investment in beautification by landscaping
and street improvements can have a big positive impact on the appearance
and appeal of this area.
* Has the potential for good vehicular access from both West State Street
and Meadow Street.
* Some new development in recent years, including Cherry Street Industrial
Park,has greatly improve visual character and illustrates what could be
possible in much of this area.
Future Use Potential-Negative Characteristics:
* Presently looks run down, disorganized and deteriorated in most locations.
* Not an especially attractive or effective entrance to the Cherry Street
Industrial Park.
* Equipment needed to transport and process scrap steel,the largest activity
in this area,has a strong impact on visual and environmental character.
* Large specialized structures on West Clinton Street are not suitable for
many businesses and would be expensive to modify or remove.
Plausible Choices: I. Allow market forces to determine future development activity in this area.
2. Develop an overall plan for landscaping, street, sidewalk and lighting
improvements and include this in the annual capital program as a multi-
year improvement project,possibly funded by grants.
3. Request the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to purchase some of the
parcels along West Clinton Street and work in conjunction with private
owners in a private/public partnership to make site improvements and
promote industrial development.
Recommendation: All three choices are appropriate. This area needs major upgrading to visually
improve the setting for existing and future development including the Cherry
Street Industrial Park.Coordinated public and private actions to improve general
appearance and amenity could be a significant first step. The city should seek
funds to consolidate and define curb cuts where possible, add street trees,
decorative lighting and sidewalks where needed, cut weeds and work with
property owners to otherwise improve the visual impact of their holdings. Tree-
planting programs along the inlet should be expanded to improve the appearance
of this area.
The economic benefits of assembling vacant or under used parcels,especially on
West Clinton Street, rehabilitating them and marketing them for industrial,
warehouse or commercial purposes could be substantial.
A- 29
APPENDIX B: REVIEW OF REGULATIONS
This appendix contains a review of four regulations that impact development in the city of
Ithaca: zoning, site development plan review, city environmental quality review and land
subdivision. The intent is to evaluate sections of those regulations that are relevant to the
permitting process for development in the areas studied in this report and to make suggestions
for future amendments to some of those sections. This is not intended to be a comprehensive
review of each regulation although such a review would be appropriate at some time. Specific
language for amendments suggested in this appendix would be drafted by the city when it is
determined what amendments should be made.
1. REVIEW OF CHAPTER 325 OF THE CITY OF ITHACA CODE
ZONING
Economic development, and the nature thereof, is directly tied to way real estate can be used. In
Ithaca, the use of land, the type of development that can occur and the conditions under which
this can happen, are all determined by a zoning ordinance. Through the process of ordinance
amendment over the years,the city has been divided into 24 land use control districts,including
16 sub-districts;the location and boundary of these districts are illustrated on the zoning map.
Available land that is appropriately zoned is a major inducement to development; the need to
undergo the rezoning process before a proposed development can be considered is often viewed
as a significant deterrent by those who must decide where to make their development
investments. An effective zoning ordinance attempts to strike a balance between the need to have
suitable land available for various types of development and the desire for reasonable control
over the nature and quality of such development.
A Section 325-8. District Regulations.
This basic ordinance component lists all of the primary and accessory uses permitted in
each district as well as the development regulations(lot size,yard requirements,building
height, lot coverage, parking, etc.) for each district. Permitted uses are listed in the
traditional but outdated "cumulative" format; i.e., uses permitted in a more restrictive
(said another way, less permissive) district are also permitted in all other districts which
are less restrictive (more permissive). To illustrate, residential districts are most
restrictive,ranging from single family houses on large lots to multiple family dwellings
on small lots. Single family homes are permitted in multiple family districts but the
reverse is not permitted. Typically,business districts are more permissive than residential
in terms of the uses permitted in such districts and industrial districts are the least
restrictive of all.
Cumulative zoning does not facilitate fine-tuning of the uses permitted in various
districts. For example, fast-food restaurants, gas stations and car dealerships might be
suitable in some commercial districts but might not the best use of industrially zoned
B - 1
C. Sections 325-23. General standards and 325-24. Special standards.
While standards for development, operation and maintenance are extremely useful, the
problem arises with the practicality and consistency of enforcement. A prospective
developer who finds Ithaca's current standards onerous or too demanding will probably
ignore them or seek another location. A review of the standards as written in these
sections, in terms of actual experience, might indicate how they could or should be
modified to remain useful but not excessively burdensome.
D. Planned Development.
A planned development is a useful concept whereby an area of a minimum contiguous
size is developed as a single entity in accordance with a pre-approved plan. Typically, a
planned development would contain a mix of land uses including housing, business,
maybe light industry and open space. The development could include land uses that
might not otherwise be permitted in the district. Generally, the plan used to guide the
project is arrived at through the joint effort of the developer and the Planning Board.
Specific requirements, standards, conditions and general guidelines are reviewed,
negotiated and incorporated into the approved plan which, after approval, supersedes
zoning.
The 1994 Southwest Area Plan recommended a planned development for Southwest
Park. This technique can be an effective approach to the development of any large vacant
area. Most likely, prospective developers would find it useful if not essential to know
what requirements and standards would be applied by the city to the planned
development area. Regulations needed to guide a planned development are not currently
incorporated into the city's ordinance, however. If the concept of planned development
is still considered to be a potentially useful tool, regulations to accomplish this end
should be drafted and incorporated into the zoning ordinance. It should be noted that a
May 1998 addendum to the Southwest Area Plan recommends that housing not be
considered for this area. The addendum also provides for the establishment of design
guidelines and criteria for the Southwest Area.
2. REVIEW OF CHAPTER 276 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
The Ithaca Code states that the purpose of site development plan review is, among other
things, "...to improve the design, function, aesthetics and safety of projects and site plans
which are otherwise in conformance with zoning regulations." For a community concerned
about the efficient and safe movement of vehicles and people, land use compatibility,
environmental protection, and landscaping and construction aesthetics, the ability to
influence site development is essential.
In terms of economic development, however, the downside of site plan review lies in the
B - 3
for the purposes of CEQR. Such projects might impact adjacent properties but are
expected to have limited effect on the physical, environmental, social or economic
character of the surrounding neighborhood or the city. Review of, and decision on, any
Category B site plans would be the responsibility of the Director of Planning and
Development. No public hearing would be held and the Director, as surrogate lead
agency, would make a determination on CEQR. However, either the Director or the
applicant could request that the review and approval of any specific project be made by
the Planning and Development Board. In such cases, which would probably be rare,
Category A procedures would apply. The applicant would also be able to appeal a
decision of the Planning Director to the Board.
C. Sec. 276-5. Review procedures.
Environmental review. This section contains language that could cause, or be used to
produce, significant delays in project review, approval or disapproval. Sec. 276-5.C.
states that an application for preliminary site plan approval must contain a complete
environmental review before it can be considered by the Planning and Development
Board. It also states that the Board must determine what the appropriate level of
environmental review will be. The procedure and timetable for making this early
determination are not spelled out,however.
An amendment to Chapter 276 should be considered to give the Planning and
Development Board authority to authorize the Director of Planning to make an early
determination of the appropriate level of environmental review. It is suggested that the
sketch plan conference, should the applicant elect to use this option, would enable the
Director to make such a determination in a relatively short time period. Any language
revision should also state that the Director's determination could be appealed by the
applicant and overturned by the Board.
Sec. 276-5.F. sets a 45-day time period within which a public hearing on a preliminary
site plan must be held. Current State law has increased this to 62 days and further states
that a decision on the application must be made within 62 days after the hearing. The
city's regulation should be amended to include this provision. Specific time periods for
action are helpful, of course, but are also very fluid in that the CEQR process must be
completed before action can be taken on any application for site plan approval.
B - 5
Local communities have the option of either accepting the state's SEQR regulations or
enacting their own. If local ordinances are enacted pursuant to SEQR they can be more
restrictive, but cannot be less restrictive,than the state's regulatory framework, as set forth
in Part 617. Like most cities, Ithaca has elected to enact its own environmental review
regulations, contained in Section 176 of the City Code.
The objective of this part of the economic development report is to examine the city's CEQR
regulations to see if, and to what extent, they are more restrictive than those of the State's
SEQR law and might, therefore, be unnecessary impediments to economic development
CEQR. By and large, city environmental review regulations track very closely with those
of the State's Part 617. Both list certain so-called Type I actions which are considered as
potential candidates for the preparation of an environmental impact statement. There is also
a list of Type II actions which specifically do not require an environmental review because
no discretionary judgement is involved. Actions not included as Type I or Type II are
considered Unlisted actions,i.e.,they are not listed and the need for an environmental impact
statement depends on the circumstances and nature of the action being considered.
In summary:
Type I actions: good chance that an EIS will be required.
Type II actions: no EIS required.
Unlisted Actions: the need for an EIS to be determined by the lead agency on
a case by case basis.
As stated above,thresholds and criteria are established in both the state and city
regulations to give guidance on whether or not an action that has not been designated as
Type II will be considered to be Type I or will remain Unlisted. The opportunity for
modification of CEQR, should it be desired to make the regulations less or more
restrictive, lies primarily in the list of Type I actions and the thresholds used to establish
those actions.
Thresholds related to Type I actions are addressed in Sections 176-12 of the City Code.
They can be eased to the extent that they are more protective of the environment than
thresholds in Part 617 of the state's SEQR regulations.
A review of the city's Type I actions suggests that at least 11 of the 36 thresholds listed in
Section 176-12 of the Code could be amended, and several others deleted, with no, or
very limited, loss of environmental protection. By making these changes,described
below,the number of projects that could be subject to the time-consuming and often
costly review that CEQR can entail would be significantly reduced.
Section 176-12.B. (1) says that Type I actions are those involving The construction of the
following or the major alteration or conversion of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
area, existing size, intensity or frequency of use of the following or, where noted,
demolition of the following:
B - 7
Sub Now says Recommended Remarks
section
premises, encompasses more
than 20,000 sq. ft.
(1)(w) Any unlisted action which Reduce threshold to SEQR uses "substantially
takes place wholly or partially 50 feet or exclude contiguous to.."which
within 100 feet of any critical some categories of usually means very close if
environmental area. land uses such as one not touching, but this might
and two family be too ambiguous. In an
residences, or do both. urban area 100 feet from a
CEA has the potential of
involving a number of uses
that would not have an
adverse effect on the CEA.
(The city has no CEAs at
this time).
(5) Permanent removal of the Add the words "unless This qualification could
topsoil from, or other physical done as part of a exclude some actions which
alteration to, more than one construction project would not normally be
half acre. for which a building considered Type I projects.
permit has been
issued."
(6) The adoption of...zoning Divide this threshold Adopting a land use or
ordinances or amendments into two separate management plan is different
thereto, including any zoning considerations: those in nature than an amended
ordinance or amendment related to planning zoning ordinance. The
thereto which permits a matters and those SEQR threshold on zoning
change of use of the related to zoning. The says that a change must
land,....etc. threshold related to a affect allowable uses in an
zoning amendment area of at least 25 acres to be
should include the a Type I action. The city's
words "affecting land tight threshold would seem
use in 5 or more acres to be unnecessarily
in the district." burdensome.
(9) The granting of any zoning Track zoning changes Requests for zoning changes
change at the request of an to evaluate the actual vary greatly in nature.
applicant for an action that effect of this Because most of the CEQR
meets or exceeds 1 or more of threshold.Amend the Type I thresholds are quite
the thresholds given in other section so that at least low, it can be expected that
sections of this list. 2 thresholds would many such requests will
have to be met or exceed at least 1 of them and
exceeded. thereby unnecessarily burden
and delay the already rigid
process for getting a zoning
change.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO CEQR REGULATIONS
B - 9
the Planning Board has a time period within which it must act. Final approval is
conditional, however, until all required improvements that are the subdivider's
responsibility have be made and approved.
3. After all improvements have been made,the final plat is certified as approved by the
Chairperson and Secretary of the Planning Board.
4. Within a specified time period the subdivider must file the certified final plat with the
County Clerk. Until this is done,the lots cannot be sold.
There are several changes in Chapter 290, described below, that should be considered to
streamline, simplify and expedite the subdivision approval process and to comply with
current enabling legislation related to this activity(General City Law Sections 32 - 37).
Recommended Changes
1. Sketch Plan. While not a requirement of State law, a preapplication Sketch Plan stage can be
incorporated into local regulations.The idea is to give the subdivider an early indication of the likely
reaction to the proposal and to indicate the level of environmental review that could be anticipated.
At the subdivider's option, a sketch plan could be submitted to staff for informal review. Relatively
little money would have to be spent by the subdivider at this point and the discussion would indicate
what type of problems and concerns could be anticipated, including possible adverse public reaction.
Addition of this step has the potential of being very helpful to the subdivider and is not time-
consuming since the staff could respond quickly. This proposed provision corresponds closely with
the first stage of Site Development Plan Review(Sec. 276-5.B.).
2. See.290-8.E.This section states that subdivision approval by the Planning Board and the Board of
Public Works is required.This could lead to lengthy delays in the approval process unless some form
of consolidated review is practiced.Public works participation in the discussion of a Sketch Plan(see
above)might be a way to expedite this requirement.
3. See.290-11. Minimum preliminary information. The level of detail required at the preliminary
plat stage should not require a large expenditure of money for engineering drawings and other
information except as might be necessary to obtain boundary surveys and undertake appropriate
CEQR studies. While Section 290-11 is generally successful at conveying this message, several
subsections(B. (1),B. (6),B. (7),E.)are unclear as to the level of information needed and should be
reviewed.
4. Public hearing. The required public hearing(Sec.290-12.C.)for a proposed subdivision should be
held on the preliminary plat rather than the final plat. The subdivider has invested relatively little in
the project at the preliminary stage and comment from the public can accommodated more easily.Any
CEQR hearing would be held at the preliminary plat stage;both CEQR and subdivision hearings could
be combined. If the final plat is not essentially the same as the conditionally approved preliminary
plat,a second public hearing could be held at the final plat stage.
5. See. 290-14.A. Consider other forms of guarantee as an alternative to a performance bond.
Performance bonds are sometimes difficult to get and very expensive. Other forms,acceptable to the
City Attorney, can be less onerous and would be adequate for the purpose.
6. Sec.290-19.13.(4). It is suggested that the maximum length of a cul-de-sac street apply to residential
subdivisions only. Alternatively,increase the maximum length for nonresidential subdivisions.Access
for emergency vehicles is the primary reason for the maximum-length standard and the concern is less
critical in business and industrial areas.
B - 11
APENDIX C: INTERMUNICIPAL COOPERATION
STATEMENT OF NEED
The City of Ithaca faces the difficult and perpetual task of finding adequate revenues to finance an
expanding level of municipal services. Figures from the 1998 budget show that real property tax
revenue is expected to provide 27% of the money needed to run the city; it is anticipated that sales
and use taxes will provide approximately the same amount of revenue. In recent years, however, the
assessed value of taxable real property has been in decline and sales tax revenue has been relatively
static. Meanwhile,the overall cost of running government continues to go up (16% increase between
1993 and 1997.
Clearly, any increase in the two biggest sources of revenue -- property and sales tax -- will be
important to the city's financial stability. To achieve this increase, some level of economic growth is
essential. It is to be expected, of course,that other municipalities in Tompkins County will also seek
additional tax base. Although some County municipalities do not currently favor growth, others are
already competing for a share of new development as a way to strengthen their own economic base.
Some of these municipalities have been constrained, however, by the absence of services-- primarily
sewage disposal--needed to support additional development.
At present, public sewage disposal services are available on a shared basis in the City and Town of
Ithaca and part of the Town of Dryden through the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
(IAWTF). There is significant excess treatment capacity in this system but extensions to new service
areas have historically been resisted to an extent by the city. The city's reluctance related to equitable
sharing of infrastructure costs and to concerns that the extension of sewer service into suburban areas
might reduce the city's ability to compete for new development!
In view of current economic challenges facing the city, the attitude on utility extension is
understandable. However, to optimize potential for economic growth within the urbanized area,
municipal water and sewer services need t be provided to the most appropriate sites regardless of the
municipality in which such sites are located. For this to happen equitably, and to be politically
acceptable, all municipalities involved in providing those services need to share in the benefits that
accrue from having the services available.
Previous studies indicate that there are no technical reasons preventing the extension of sewage
disposal services to areas of need adjacent to the current IAWTF service areas, i.e., into the Towns of
Lansing and Dryden. What has been absent to date is the political will to shape an agreement
whereby all municipalities would share in the benefits of having sewers available (see footnote). A
similar condition applied to public water services until 1976 when the Bolton Point water system
(Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission) began to provide water on a multi-
municipal basis. The city and Cornell University both continue to maintain independent water
systems (an arrangement that is currently under review) but all three systems are interconnected and
water is shared with nit is expeditious to do so.
Both the IAWTF and Bolton Point were established under the provisions of state law that permit
intermunicipal agreements between two or more governing bodies. Both agreements solve the
problem of providing public services to a clearly defined area on a multi-municipal basis. Neither
addresses the issue of how to share tax revenue generated by development, which comes about
because the services are available. Finding a workable and acceptable answer to revenue sharing for
municipal sewage disposal services is a big political challenge that, if successfully addressed, could
be a major positive achievement for urban area municipalities seeking additional economic growth.
' It should be noted that,since this material was written,considerable progress appears to have been made
toward an agreement on extension of sewer services into adjacent municipalities. A multi-municipal grant
requesting funds for sewer extensions has been submitted and using a portion of hook-up fees to defray system-
wide expenses is being considered. The possibility of sharing the benefits of development made possible by
having sewers available,as discussed in this appendix,remains to be considered.
C - 1
i
AUTHORITY
The authority, which enables New York State municipalities to enter into intermunicipal cooperation
agreements, lies in Article 5-G of General Municipal Law. Section 1119-o of Article 5-G states:
...municipal corporations and districts shall have the power to enter into, amend,
cancel and terminate agreements for the performance among themselves, or one
for the other, of their respective functions,powers and duties on a cooperative or
contract basis, or for the provision of a joint service or a joint water, sewage or
drainage project.
Section 119-o goes on to say a cooperative agreement may contain provisions relating to:
A method or formula for equitably providing for an allocating revenues and for
equitably allocating and financing the capital and operating costs, including
payments to reserve funds authorized by law and payments of principal and
interest on obligations.
Under this provision two or more municipalities may enter into one or more agreements to plan
jointly, provide services and adopt mutual sharing programs. Each municipality must possess the
power to do, act or perform the service or action before it can enter into an agreement to do the same
thing on a joint basis with another community.
CASE STUDY
In Chenango County,New York, the City of Norwich and the Towns of Norwich and North Norwich
have joined efforts as one of the State's Economic Development Zone projects. As part of this project
these three communities have entered into a municipal cooperation agreement and mutual revenue-
sharing plan using Article 5-G of General Municipal Law as the enabling authority.
The purpose for this joint venture was to work cooperatively and to financially interact to
"...strengthen existing businesses and attract new businesses for increased employment
opportunities". To reach this goal the three municipalities agreed on a number of specific provisions,
including:
1. Working cooperatively on all planning, economic development projects and service
delivery with a predetermined zone.
2. Depositing into a special economic development zone tax increment fund any
increases in real property taxes levied by the municipalities on specific properties in
the zone. Taxable value in 1994 was established as the base figure for determining
tax revenue increase.
3. Depositing any increases in sales tax revenues received from each municipality, over
and above the tax yield in the base year of 1993, into the special tax increment fund.
C - 2
4. Using a potion(55%)of the proceeds of the special tax increment fund for projects in
the zone such as infrastructure, property acquisition, marketing and engineering
costs, matching funds for grant assistance and other activities supplemental to
existing services and approved by the Greater Norwich Local Development
Corporation. The balance of the proceeds (45%) was divided among the three
municipalities in accordance with a predetermined formula, to be used for
discretionary expenditures.
5. Determining that the Greater Norwich Local Development Cooperation(LDC)would
have full and complete authority with respect to distribution of the 55% allocated to
the joint venture and making decision on projects to be funded.
6. Appointing members of the Greater Norwich LDC in accordance with a
predetermined representation formula agreed to by the three municipalities.
7. The City of Norwich agrees to provide water and sewage disposal services in the
zone (the city has the only municipal services at present) upon installation of
necessary infrastructure by the towns.
8. Applying jointly for grant funds for projects within the zone.
9. Assigning to the Norwich Community Development Officer responsibility for on-
going economic development planning, marketing and promotion, assistance to
companies looking for financial help and providing other technical assistance as
needed to advance development in the zone.
10. The initial terms of the agreement are valid for a 30-year period and can be renewed
if all parties consent. Amendments are subject to agreement by all parties.
In essence,this intermunicipal agreement states that the City of Norwich will extend municipal water
and sewage treatment services into the two adjacent towns when the towns install the necessary
distribution and collection mains. In exchange, a portion of any incremental real property and sales
tax increases resulting from the provision of municipal services is placed in a special fund, which is
used to promote economic development and pay for infrastructure expansion and replacement needs
in the district.
There may be models other than that used in Chenango County to guide intermunicipal sharing in
Tompkins County. Initially, it would make sense to limit the number of municipalities involved in
any agreement and to focus on this issue would greatly ease any concerns about competition between
the City of Ithaca and the Towns of Lansing,Dryden and Ithaca for future economic growth.
It would also assure the three towns that current and future development proposals needing public
sewage disposal services could plan on getting those services with broader locational options than
currently exist.
COMPONENTS OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT
Based on the Norwich model outlined above, an intermunicipal agreement in Tompkins County
would include at least the following components and considerations:
C - 3
i
1. Preliminary expression of interest from participating municipalities. The County
could, perhaps, use its good offices to facilitate initial meeting and provide research
staff to gather any technical and legal information needed throughout the process.
Cornell University might also be able to provide valuable background and research
resources.
2. Description and delineation of the general area included in any sewer
extension/revenue-sharing agreement.
3. Identification of specific sites or groups of sites that would be affected.
4. Define terms and funding arrangements for extending sewer services. This has been
the sticking point to date but a revenue-sharing agreement should help to solve
remaining issues.
5. Identification of the types of land use that would be included in the revenue-sharing
agreement. Most likely this would be limited to commercial and industrial
development of various types and would not include housing.
6. Establish a formula for revenue sharing and set a time period to be used as a baseline
for determining the amount of"new" revenue that would be shared.
7. Establish a process for distribution and management of"new"revenue funds.
8. Describe purposes for which that portion of shared revenue to be distributed to the
participating municipalities might be used.
9. Create a format for on-going policy review,decision-making and program oversight.
10. Establish procedures for amendment,extension or termination of the agreement.
WW
There may be other issues and considerations that would come from negotiation of the sewer
extension/revenue-sharing agreement. It can be anticipated that developing such an agreement would
be a difficult and time-consuming process for the municipalities involved. It can also be anticipated „
that the reward for successful completion of the process would be a rational development
environment that fully capitalizes on urban-area economic growth potential and equally rewards all
participants.
C -4
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF SMALL-GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Early in the information-gathering phase of this study 38 people were invited by Mayor Cohen to
participate in several small-group discussion sessions.The purpose of these meetings was to give
participants an opportunity express their opinions, in a dialogue format, on prospects and limitations
for economic development in Ithaca and Tompkins County.
Participants in the discussion groups were selected from names recommended by the Advisory
Committee,the Mayor,the chairman of Council's Planning Committee,the staff of the City Planning
Department and the consultant.Five broad areas of local involvement were represented by group
members: industry,retail and office,real estate development, finance and alternative economic
programs. The intent was to assemble a representative cross-section of interests,opinions and personal
experiences.
In his letter of invitation the Mayor said"We are looking for a no-holds-barred,tell-it-like-it-is
discussion of the local development climate."Discussion groups were kept small. To stimulate
response and provide a minimum amount of focus and structure for the discussion, several questions
were asked at the beginning of each session related to participant's personal experience with, and
concerns about, local conditions and the best advice to give a prospective investor from outside the
community.
Individual responses varied and covered a range of topics.There was considerable consistency from
group to group, however. There were also disagreements within and between groups. Responses have
been grouped into categories, synthesized and summarized below.
Development
* Development in the city has had to deal with two negative issues: the permitting process and the
political environment.Double trouble for someone who wants to get something done.
* City needs to be more disciplined and focused in the development process. Developers now
subject to political whims and don't know what to expect next.
* One liability for the city: land is expensive especially when you have to assemble a larger parcel,
take down buildings or do extensive environmental assessments and clean-up.
* Important to keep Ithaca an attractive place.Need to strike a balance between "excessive control"
and "anything is acceptable."
* City needs to send out the message loud and clear: "Yes,we're interested in development." Pick a
high-visibility project and get it done.
* City still has big problems that don't want to go away...too many of the same people get involved
in every act. City needs to take big-time leadership to encourage prospective new development.
Favorable treatment of a big project would do a lot to dispel the anti-development perception.
* There is a serious need to get development of Inlet Island under control. City needs to take the
lead. Otherwise,the area will fall victim to random development and probably won't become an
E - 1
i
effective anchor opposite the Commons. Some feeling that a solidly developed Inlet Island on the
west and a revitalized Commons on the east will help the economy of the area in between(West
State Street).
* Won't be able to keep growing businesses in Ithaca or Tompkins County if there is no place for
them to expand when the need arises.
* Microenterprise programs,many of which are aimed at low-income people, are beginning to grow
into a significant County-wide activity and should receive greater recognition as such.
* City should prioritize areas where retail activity can occur. Okay if areas develop spontaneously
but public resources should be carefully focused.
* Development of Cherry Street is one of the city's success stories. Should try to expand on this
approach when considering Southwest Park's future.
*
A lack of accessible,visible sites is more of a hinderance to city development than regulations.
* The economic plan should state a clear set of strategies and objectives for future commercial and
industrial development. Don't keep changing the rules. "
* Industrial development needs an ambiance like Brown Road or Cherry Street rather than an
isolated site.
* Bad strategy to try and mix lower value commercial buildings with higher value industrial/hi-tech
buildings.
* Pre-approving sites can be a very useful technique for promoting development. Should include
controlling the site(ownership),uses allowed,environmental assessment, incentives and
financing.
* Development anywhere in Tompkins County"makes the pie bigger"and helps everyone.
Review/Approval Process
* Staff support and assistance now much better than previously. Still need someone to "grease the
wheels"and make things happen. Staff/boards need to help developers be ready when they get to
the public process.
* There is need for someone who can move things along on a County-wide basis--an ombudsman
who can take the developer through the process. This person could be the link between the various
involved departments,track the project and communicate regularly with the developer.
* City should state clearly what it needs for project approvals and how it might work with the
developer get to expedite the process. Try to minimize surprises and unexpected sources of
municipal and public opposition.
* Some prospective developers aren't bothered by local regulations as long as they're reasonable and
E- 2
the rules don't change.
* In the past,the city has not given much encouragement to those wishing to participate in the
development process. "If you make it through its an accident or you've just worn them down." It is
an intimidating process but things have been much better recently.
* Sometimes seems that one municipal department doesn't communicate with others so they can all
work toward the same objective.You never know when you will hit a roadblock in the process.
* If you have to move quickly to make a deal work,you probably should go to the town of Lansing
and forget the city.
* Several reported a good experience working with city personnel and believed the process here was
no different than in other communities that are desirable places to develop.
* Need to take some of the subjectivity out of the review process. Site plan review seems to be
aimed at better landscaping and micro-controlling development. Regulation doesn't seem to make
the product better in many cases.
* There has been some moderation in attitude at the review and approval level but there still needs to
be a greater sense of reasonableness when this is possible.Need to get rid of the "gotcha"
enforcement attitude.
* Building and Fire Departments now have a helpful attitude of"wanting to make it work."Things
are much better now than they were previously.
* Site plan review process is too open ended.The developer never know when the city will want
additional studies or want to look at some new aspect of a proposal. The process can be expensive
and time consuming.
* There is an "irritation" factor about working with the city bureaucracy that gets talked about in the
development business and that need to be corrected.
* Regulations aren't bad,per se,but should be reduced to the minimum level necessary to maintain
the prized quality of life of this area.
Labor Force,Housing,Cost of Living,Quality of Life
* Can get hi-end and to-end technical employees in this area but mid-level talent is difficult.
* Skilled labor market is a problem.
* Tax rates are critical for people living in this area. Taxes are high because a lot of services are
demanded and provided.
* NYS is an expensive state in which to do business.Need to compensate for that at the local level
by being a strongly business-friendly place and promoting quality of life.
E - 3
i
* This is a great place to live and raise a family but many employees can't afford to live here.
Limited amount of good,affordable housing close to the city.Bottom-end and top-end housing is '
available.
* Pay for mid-level skills is higher in bigger cities; cost of living here is too high for many blue-
collar workers and people with mid-level skills. These people commute from rural towns and from
other counties.
* Higher than average education; lower than average pay scale.Might have to make some
concessions to get businesses that have higher paying jobs.
* The city is a great place to live and should do what it can to encourage people to live here. All we
have to sell is quality-of-life but that is very important to many businesses.
* Companies come to, and stay in,this area often for very personal reasons. The living quality and
natural environment that can be enjoyed in a small town atmosphere,with a high level of urban
amenity because of the colleges,are great local strengths that few will deny.
Downtown
* City should take the lead in helping downtown property-owners find ways to use upper stories.
Need one person to spearhead the revitalization process.
* Offices and housing should be the focus of downtown.Upper floors might be converted into
condominium housing that people would buy and take pride in ownership. Would also add to the
sense of activity in the downtown.
* Downtown has many more positives than negatives but it is not a"destination" shopping area.
There are some destination stores,however.
* While it may be a chicken-and-egg situation,there have to be more people living in, or coming to,
the downtown before it will begin to recover as a commercial center.
* Downtown needs to take on a distinctive character and then market itself.
* Offices wired for high speed internet connections would be very popular.
* Big boxes on Elmira Road would be tough on the Central Business District. (Another opinion):
Commons does not compete with the big box retailer and the mall.
* Collegetown is pretty much self-contained.No real reason why students would have to, or want to,
come downtown. City helped make Collegetown a successful development area.
Finances
* The ability to get financing is not considered to be a local resource by some.
E -4
• Securing local financing for a local product is sometimes very difficult. It is often much more
productive to go outside the area where there is more interest.
• Some agreement that now is a very good time to try to get things built--good initial funding and
good interest rates. However,there is a need to bridge the gap between venture funding and
longer-term financing.
• Tax abatement for several years is sometimes a critical factor between success and failure for a
business. The city does not capitalize on this incentive.
• Regional and local banks provide good competition so financing is possible. They're "open for
business;"which is much different than 15 years ago. Local banks are seen as more conservative
than regional banks but locals will make loans if there is a good business plan and the project is
not too risky.
• Once a company grows it is hard to keep it here. We don't have "mezzanine" (secondary)financing
if,for example,you needed$5 -$l OM to grow. Some venture funds now considering this need as
well as start-ups.
• Can usually get initial funding but it is much harder to get longer-term financing which involves
more money and is often more risky.
Perceptions/General Comments
* We are perceived as a community that discourages growth--one of several in Tompkins County.
* Research and Development businesses will often lease first and that is believed to be relatively
easy in this community. Such businesses want to be located in an area where they can have a nice
building and convey the appearance of success. Clients of such businesses want to be near hotels,
restaurants and interesting surroundings,not out in the country.
* TCAD needs to expand its mission and provide services beyond its current focus. Should work
with commercial and service clients. Lots of opportunities here but a coordinated effort is needed.
* The general ambiance of the Cherry Street industrial area doesn't convey the image that some
businesses want for their customers. Investors are interested in developing in areas where the
ambiance is pleasant and there is a good chance that resale, if necessary,would be possible.
* The city and other local communities often jump at the first proposal that comes along rather that
thinking about the best long term development.
* There is a strong feeling that more needs to be done to keep and grow businesses that are already
here. Most agree that this is more important than getting new businesses to come to the area.
* Being close to the airport is critical for some businesses,not important to others.
* The city has a limited amount of new growth to counter-act the decline of assessments due to
successful challenges to current assessed values.
E - 5
i
* If fully serviced sites were available in the city,they could probably be successfully marketed.
* Too often political decisions are made in response to opposition, complaints or ideas that are faril
from an expression of the will of the majority.
* There might be interest in development from people who have graduated from CU and IC and <<
want to return here to start a business and network with former professors or just because they like
the place.
* Tompkins County has technology and people with skills that are usually found only in much
bigger communities. We need to capitalize on this asset. '
* The economic potential of the not-for-profit sector should be looked at more seriously.
* There are many businesses that don't need or want large or expensive space.Rather,they want a
small, flexible space in which to start and grow and don't want to dicker about a 1, 3 or 5 year
lease. They need to move quickly through the space-finding phase and often need help with the
bureaucracy. Sometimes they also need technical and management help..BIC is a very good
resource in this respect.
* Someone should assemble and keep current a centralized inventory of space availability in this
area:what kind,how much,where located,zoning,what services available, etc.
�r
* R&D businesses want to be in an area where they can have a nice building and can convey the
appearance of"being successful."
* There was some interest expressed in exploring additional techniques for sharing resources in the
County. What about a County Industrial Park?
* It is easier to develop in areas where land is less expensive.Falling real estate prices are beginning
to make some development activity happen that wouldn't otherwise be possible.
* Ithaca has potential--depends on how it is marketed. Cornell and Ithaca College should be a big °
piece of the marketing effort.
E - 6
APPENDIX F: ADVISORY COMMITTEE VALUE SCAN
At the beginning of this Economic Development Plan, an eleven-member Advisory Committee was
appointed to guide the consultant,react to material presented and make recommendations to the Mayor
and Council.Before in-depth work on the study began, a short exercise was conducted to determine, at
least superficially, some of the individual values of Advisory Committee members. The intent of the
value scan was to determine,to the extent possible,whether individual committee members held
similar or divergent views on such things as the future of Ithaca's economy,the need to promote
economic growth and the relative importance of economic considerations in the general interests of
community residents.
A brief survey was completed by each committee member.A number of possible goals for economic
planning were presented and committee members were asked to rate them as to relative importance
from "3" (most important)to "0" (least important). Results of the survey are as follows:
Relative Importance
Goal 3 (most) 2 1 0(least)
1 Provide more jobs 4(36.4%) 4(36.4%) 3 (27.3%) 0
2 Provide better jobs b(54;5010) _:! 5,(45:5 f0) 0 0
3 Expand taxable property base 9"(8i8°lnj Y {9!.1°fo) 1 (9.1%) 0
4 Expand sales tax revenues 7(616%)`' 31(27;300) _ 1 (9.1%) 0
5 Strengthen existing businesses 3 (27.30/0) 7(63.60K) 1 (9.1%) 0
6 Provide greater diversity and stability 2(18.2%) 4(36.4%) 4(36.4%) 1 (9.1%)
7 Increase sale of goods and services to areas
outside County 1 (9.1%) 8 (72.7%) 0 2 (18.2%)
8 Minimize purchase of goods and services
from outside the County 0 4(36.4%) 2 (18.2%) 5 (45.5%)
9 Improve local government efficiency(e.g.
simplify land use approval process) 4(36..4%) S(54..5%) 1 (9.1%) 0
10 Capitalize on natural amenities 6(54.5%) 3 (27.3%) 2 (18.2%) 0
11 Recruit new businesses 7(63.3%) 2(18.2%) 2 (18.2%) 0
12 Other(please describe)One response:
"Market city as great place to live" 1
F - 1
i
.�
�.
,�
��
y'x
pr
WeF
�?'
Rpe,
A second value survey of committee members consisted of a number of statements related to economic issues.
Each statement was rated as follows: 3=strongly agree;2=mixed feelings; 1=strongly disagree;
O=no opinion. The results of this survey are shown below.
3 2 1 0
(Strongly (Mixed (Strongly (No
Statement Agree) Feelings) Disagree) Opinion)
1 A realistic assessment will show that economic 6 3 1
growth potential in Ithaca is limited. 1 (9.1%) (54.5%) (27.3%) (9.1%)
2 Working toward a stable economy that will ,
improve the standard of living for most people is 2
the most important thing government can do. (18.2%)
` 0 1 (9.1%)
. i�
3 Tompkins Co.must address its lack of direct
connection to major transportation routes if the 4 3 4
local economy is to prosper. (36.4%) (27.3%) (36.4%) 0
4 Tourism has the potential of growing in
importance as a major component of the local E `®r 1 1
economy. (9.1%) (9.1%) 0
� J
5 The City is getting along alright as it is and no q '
serious changes in emphasis or direction are 3
needed. 0 (27.3%) 0
6 The City should pursue its own business 4 5 1 1
recruitment. (36.4%) (45.5%) (9.1%) (9.1%)
7 Effective municipal cooperation and `
coordination on many fronts will be essential
if the economy of Tompkins Co. is to prosper 1
in the 21 st century.
8 Any economic development project that would
diminish the open,accessible character of the 3 4 3
waterfront should be resisted.* (30.0%) (40.0%) (30.0%) 0
9 In the long run,protecting the environment will do
more for the economy,and be more beneficial to
the people of Ithaca and Tompkins Co.,than 2 7 2
encouraging additional development. (18.2%) (63.3%) (18.2%) 0
10 Local economic development is currently inhibited
by too many governmental restrictions and 4 7
roadblocks. (36.4%) (63.6%) 0 0
11 In the city,too much effort is being focused on 2
economic development at the expense of equally 1 (9.1%) (18.2%) 0
F - 2
iol
3 2 1 0
(Strongly (Mixed (Strongly (No s
Statement Agree) Feelings) Disagree) Opinion)
important issues. „ KAI
12 The city should evaluate its natural resources and
determine specifically which are the most 5 4 :
important to protect from development. (45.5%) (36.4%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (9.1%)
13 From the viewpoint of the competitive world of
economic development,Ithaca and Tompkins Co.
are less than the unique,dynamic places many of 3 4 3
us believe.* (30.0%) (40.0 0/6) (30.0%) 0
14 The Ithaca economy will benefit more if efforts are
focused on multiple small projects rather than on
large concepts(new highways or commercial
centers,etc.)that produce major changes in 6 4
existing conditions. (54.5%) (36.4%) 1 (9.1%) 0
15 The greatest economic development potential lies 3 7
in effective linkages to Cornell and Ithaca College. (27.3%) (63.6%) 1 (9.1%) 0
16 Greater development density is an acceptable way 2 1
to increase the city's tax base. (18.2%) 0 (9.1%)
17 A faster pace of economic development than
presently exists is not in the best interest of Ithaca 2
residents.* 0 (20.0%) 0
18 When push comes to shove,sensitivity to
environmental conditions should have priority 2 5 2 1
over economic development initiatives.* (20.0%) (50.0%) (20.0%) (10.0%)
19 1 feel generally positive about the economic future 7 4
of the city of Ithaca. (63.3%) (36.4%) 0 0
*There were only 10 responses to this question
F - 3
APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED FOR THIS REPORT
In past years the city of Ithaca has made, or commissioned,many reports, surveys, applications and
agreements that are germane to economic development. A number of these previous studies contained
recommendations that continue to be relevant today. Some of these earlier proposals are, in fact,
included in this most current economic development report. In the past,however,prevailing
community attitudes, political philosophies and financial constraints at any given time have affected
project implementation and thereby restrained economic development. These conditions always exists
to one degree or another but it is interesting to note, in passing,the ideas and concepts that have been
around for many years.
Previous studies, and pertinent findings and recommendations contained in these studies,have been
reviewed; most are summarized in this Appendix G.
Material reviewed for this report.
1. 1997: Tompkins County Waterfront Plan•,prepared for a multi-agency oversight committee
by Trowbridge&Wolf Landscape Architects; study coordinated by the Tompkins
County Planning Department.
This report outlines a proposal for capitalizing on the development and use of Cayuga
Lake waterfront land. Multiple proposals envision the waterfront as an area that will
be..."more attractive to residents, visitors and potential investors and entrepreneurs."
The waterfront, especially in the city, is viewed as a resource that has not been
effectively developed to date. Future development on Inlet Island and elsewhere
should focus on making Ithaca a destination attraction.
2. 1996-97: Report on Work of the Vision Committee;prepared by the Vision Committee of the
Economic Development Forum.
The first two steps of a four-step process were completed: 1)Envisioning the future,
and 2)Development of"candidate" vision statements. Five individual candidate vision
statements were prepared by committee members and a draft committee vision
statement was developed. At the appropriate time,the city will discuss this in more
detail and draw conclusions.
3. 1996: Ithaca Business Environment:A Public Opinion Survey;prepared for the Tompkins
County Economic Development Task Force as a student project.
This was a survey of local shoppers to "learn how citizens feel about Ithaca's retail and
small business economy and to determine how city government might better serve the
needs of the local consumers and small businesses." Surveys were conducted at Tops
Supermarket, Woolworth's and on the Commons.
G- 1
i
Multiple-choice questions were somewhat general in nature with limited opportunity
to qualify or expand on answers. Of particular interest:
* 65%of all respondents think Ithaca is a good place to be in business
* 85%think Ithaca should be trying to attract new businesses
* Just over half think the city does a good job of attracting new businesses
Based on survey responses, it was concluded that business owners were more
pessimistic about the business climate than non-business owners and that there was a
general consumer dissatisfaction concerning price and the availability of certain goods
and services.
4. 1996: Meadow Street/Fulton Street Study;Department of Planning and Development(study
recently released in draft form--not reviewed for this report)
5. 1994: Southwest Area Land Use Study; Report of the Southwest Area Land Use Committee.
The Southwest Area Land Use Committee considered and area generally south of ear
West Clinton Street and west of Meadow Street and Elmira Road. Highlights:
a. Industrial development along Cherry Street should continue in the remaining area „
between the railroad and flood channel.
b. There was committee consensus that areas other than Southwest Park were better
suited for open space and recreation and that the 62 acres of Southwest Park
should be developed.
c. The committee convened a focus group of realtors,developers and bankers to tour
Southwest Park and evaluate its viability as a potential site for affordable housing.
Response was less than enthusiastic;viability was thought to be dependent on a
significant subsidy to reduce land costs and pay for infrastructure. The focus `
group also believed that a site with all permits pre-approved and environmental
investigations completed would be essential.
d. The DPW requested that approximately 10 acres of Southwest Park be reserved
for bulk storage of sand, gravel, bricks, etc.
e. Amend the zoning ordinance to allow for a mixed-use development of Southwest
Park,with an emphasis on affordable housing, and to prevent further residential
development in the adjacent mobile home district.
f. Automobile-oriented commercial development is appropriate for all land with
frontage on South Meadow Street and Elmira Road.
g. Any future land use proposals should reserve a right-of-way for a future north-
south street corridor as well as a new roadway connecting Meadow Street and
Floral Avenue.
h. Due to considerations of economic feasibility,the City should periodically
reconsider the committee recommendations for future use of Southwest Park.
G- 2 .
NOTE: This report was formally amended by Common Council in May 1998. Among
other changes,the Council wanted to de-emphasize the suitability of housing in
Southwest Park. Council also determined that design guidelines and criteria should be
established for Southwest Park.
6. 1994: Wetland Delineation Southwest Park Property Ithaca, New York, prepared for the
Department of Planning and Zoning by Stearns&Wheler, Cazenovia,NY.
The city requested that a wetland delineation be undertaken in accordance with
Federal wetland identification standards. Three site investigations were made during
the spring and summer of 1994.
a. Several wetlands were identified and plotted. These are located largely in the
southeastern quadrant of the site.Field map measurements indicate a total area of
roughly 8 acres of wetlands with the largest being about 3 acres in area.
b. The Army Corps would have to review the wetland map,visit the property and
confirm in writing the findings of the 1994 wetland study before jurisdiction and
actual boundaries can be determined. (Note: Boundaries have now been survey
and wetland areas have been designated by the Corps)
7. 1994: Application for a New York State Economic Development Zone; Department of
Planning and Development. (Not reviewed for this study.)
8. 1993: Economic Adjustment Strategy for the Southern Tier Region of New York State--
Economic Development Overview and Strategy Considerations for Tompkins County;
prepared by Economic Research Associates under contract to NYS Department of
Economic Development.
Considers how nine counties in the Southern Tier of New York State could adjust to
cutbacks in the federal defense budget and corporate restructuring that began in the
early years of the 1990s. An economic strategy for each of the nine counties was
formulated as well as an overall strategy for the Southern Tier region. Tompkins
County seen as an area with significant economic potential related to Cornell's
presence. The report suggests the County consider 74 separate strategies grouped in
11 broad categories of activity. Priorities are not suggested.
G- 3
i
9. 1992: Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee;prepared for Common Council by the
ad hoc Inlet Island Land Use Committee. (This should not to be confused with the
Inlet Island Development Plan completed early in 1998,which has not been reviewed
for this study.)
The Land Use Committee made a comprehensive report on an area delineated by
Buffalo Street,the Flood Control Channel and the Inlet. The report contains good
information on historic development,current land use and property ownership
patterns.
a. Proposals envision a combination of city-owned green space along the flood
channel and mixed use private development(commercial,retail,housing)that is
water-enhanced or water-dependent for most of the rest of the island.This is
consistent with other studies of this area including the most recent.
b. As a major Inlet Island land owner,the city would be in an ideal position to
become an active pro-development ally of the private sector.
c. A number of"amenity" recommendations related to traffic improvements in this
area have been incorporated into the recent DOT construction.
10. 1991: Report of the Downtown Vision Task Force;report to the Mayor by the ad hoc
Downtown Vision Task Force. This report was a compilation of the work of many
community members divided into specific subjects of interest(land use, zoning,traffic
and transportation,parking,urban design, etc.). Conclusions and recommendations
have been used by the city in some of its downtown improvement efforts and in the
current work of the Ithaca Downtown Partnership.
11. 1990: Northside Design Study;Trowbridge Associates
This is a plan for a nine-block area on the east side of Route 13 delineated by Lake
Street, Hancock Street,Third Street and Route 13. The report proposes that 4 lots on
Franklin Street, currently used by the City DPW,become commercial development
sites. One of these is currently occupied by the Sciencenter and another is zoned for
potential commercial use.
12. 1988: Agreement between State Street Associates and Neighbors for Construction of Gun
Hill Residences.
The current owner of the vacant Ithaca Gun factory,and developer of the Gun Hill
residential complex,agreed that land north of Lake Street, including the empty
factory,would not be developed for student housing,for a motel or hotel or as a
commercial retail space, including a restaurant.
Further,the 158 parking spaces serving the residents of Gun Hill Apartments will be
reserved exclusively for those residents and none will be used to meet any of the
parking requirements for the future development of the factory area on the north side
of Lake Street.
G- 4
13. 1982: Cayuga Inlet and Island Project; Peter Trowbridge and Roger Trancik
This is a study of an area bounded by Fulton Street on the east, Clinton Street on the
south,the flood control channel on the west and the Cornell boathouse on the north. It
is the same general area, slightly expanded, as included in studies noted in item "8"
above, and recommendations are similar,with an emphasis on the potential of
waterfront land.
a. Public access to the waterfront along the inlet and flood channel are considered of
particular importance.
b. Land uses such as heavy industry, automobile-oriented businesses, low density
housing and retail uses which could be located elsewhere are not appropriate for
this area.
c. Proposed land uses for the island include a 100-room hotel, 12,500 sq.ft. of new
specialty retail space, rehabilitation of some old structures for office use, and up to
30 condominium housing units. Existing marina activities would be retained and
expanded and a linear park would be created along the east bank of the flood
channel.
d. Small parks for pedestrians only are proposed for both sides of the relief channel
south of State Street.
14. 1979: Overall Economic Development Program;prepared for submission to the Economic
Development Administration,US Department of Commerce, by the Department of
Planning and Development as required supporting material for subsequent city loan
and grant applications. From this 19 year old report:
a. "Competition from suburban areas for new and existing employment
opportunities is challenging the viability of the City's downtown area. The lack of
easily developable land within the city has caused retail and manufacturing firms
to locate in peripheral areas, where land and development costs are cheaper."
b. The tapping of economic development potentials "....requires a strong
commitment on the part of a diverse group of individuals and organizations. The
area has already demonstrated that such a commitment exists through the
combined efforts of such groups as the City of Ithaca, the chamber of Commerce
and the Tompkins County Area Development, Inc."
d. Also identified was the need to acquire replacement park land to swap for
Southwest Park. The same flood plain land being considered today was
considered then. This swap was suggested to "....enable the opening up of
substantial new acreage for future industrial use in the city,for retention and
creation of manufacturing employment."
G- 5
i
e. A southward extension of the Cherry Street Industrial Park was also suggested as
was a future parkway connecting South Meadow Street with Floral Avenue.
f. Extensive discussion of the city's interest and investment in The Commons is
included in the OEDP report. Significantly,the report was used to support a
request for funding support for construction of the Ithaca Center on The
Commons.
15. 1976: Ithaca Waterways Study; Department of Planning and Development
This was an early study made to identify and evaluate the potential inherent in the
city's surface water resources and to make a comprehensive plan for future use of
these resources. Four water corridors were examined,one of which was the InletR
Valley/Lake Front corridor.Proposals include:
a. That the city acquire up to 60 acres of land between the Inlet,the levee and the
LVRR tracks(Conrail)and develop this area for park purposes as substitute land
for Southwest Park. (see "5" and "14" above.)
b. The east side of the flood control channel was suitable for industrial development
with major access from Clinton Street and a new Southwest Parkway.
c. Wooded areas on either side of the relief channel should become docking space
for non-power boats with pedestrian-only access from West Clinton.
d. A waterfront park and promenade should be established on the west bank of the
Island.Residential,recreational and marine-related development on the rest of the
Island, and on the east bank of the inlet, should be encouraged.
e. DOT garage complex to be moved or landscaped;DPW gravel storage area
should be moved; sewage treatment plant should be consolidated on the east side
of Route 13. (see several other studies above.)
£ The area at the end of Third Street should be used for a boatel,a neighborhood
commercial node and substantial townhouse/apartment house construction.
16. 1974: Cayuga Inlet Study; student project prepared for the Department of Planning and
Development.
This was an early study of the Inlet Island area conducted by Cornell architectural
students. The plan envisions a public square surrounded by shops with housing above.
Shops have an emphasis on marine needs and there would be docking for visitors as
well as residents.A public terrace,cafe and restaurant on "the point"take advantage
of the panoramic view(a consideration today.)
G- 6
17. 1971: Ithaca, N.Y.:A General Plan; City Planning Board.
This was a comprehensive plan for the entire city with land use projections for the
year 1990.
a. North of Buffalo Street,the Island..."should be developed to exploit its unique
water-oriented character and view. The area should be developed in marine-
oriented commercial land uses."
b. Land in the Inlet Valley is shown as being used for commercial and industrial
purposes;both the current Southwest Park and the substitute land for Southwest
Park mentioned in "13" above are indicated as parks; interestingly,the
Wegman/Tops area is suggested for high density residential development.
c. A new Route 13 limited access arterial is proposed using Fulton Street and
paralleling the railroad line through the Inlet Valley. This was proposed to
connect to a new Route 96/89 arterial at West Court Street.
G- 7
3
O �
a
z �
C
0
� p v
W � ...
U r x
lmw
� N U
z � �
o °
`x y cd U U a •�, vi � rol � � � � •�bA
a WawUa� � � wdHUa
d � b
o a b
G� Q G ^O
lz
•ate
• y O C;3 O N Cc +ad A O O cd
E� C7a. ° r1 C7 p., a, CA Q � Cq � E�
w O v� � xw � Hti
i
W
k
r
6�
N
x P,
w
J.i
V L",
V! iii VI 1 a-
cz, o
4.. p �„ X33
p fs. Q W 4 64 u
u
W
s�
o
u
Gti
1
�3 ' cd cd
"4 IML4
C7tir� n � ax � � aai� � •�
a
x
� o
.� .. Cd
a�
� o c� °'cm
.o
cz i. U .� O
� C,3
cn
to 0
s, o
to .^
b � J.
y
ou
cd
cl
CJ
s. -d o
� wwz Q� wvi ti � w ar � tia
i
:
a�
(� U
N U
En cn
c, o
E� k v � a`ai o o. o w N W ce
C13 4.4
Ln Ca
W o o 3
� -d 0 0 � -c to a�i � :> 4 � � � o
A U W a ° ' o o o o Q CA
cd U ed cii
O cn
U c A b O b4 U w v� N cd p N
0.4 3 Cc
WO c�i ri vi • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
�s
/ k k k k k k k
X k k k
/
Q
Cd
k
\ bo \ §
§ �
b
cc � ® = u
/ 0 j cz
Cd
E ?
o b U
w a CO
u
) k q \
= q o f A x $ 2 2
/ : 2 § 4 _ a c cd
\ % Q \ \ /
Q u o
2 Q 2 E ° \ m � 0 / / ©
o u
oA -
%0 =� � : ° ° G °
= k \ k k � v
/ / / k / / / / \ / / z /
i
� >C >C >C >C >CX >C >GXXXXXXXXX
U
a
� X X ?< X X X X X X X X X X X X •r
x
ob
o "t3 cu
o 0 � � � a A, p � t � b �n
° ° o a� O ° on
o, o ° o. a cn
"EO .0 �n 4 b 0 y N O s. U , A 3 � p ,>
rn
EOy V s 3 O O . C O O
0. � O O % v ed 4�
- �
p - CA Cd U y c i. O >O v s.
3 n >
�O .00 ° O. cd O .0 o U cd Q .- V 4-. N O � 'O O CS �
O
Id t1 �, p 4: i 3 v, rn � E � O " 4-, E N O O s. O
y = O. ?
k k k k k k k
%
_
.§
k
7
k
y
erg /
� � 3
k '
E u Q
¥
/ Lo 7 0 � f
� \ � 3 j k t U / % k
= d ® / 6 o = o U §
° / - ° o 0 -C
- f § _ a = \ c •# t
) § § ®
e k «2 > c 0 j / ) A ./
2 2 2 / § § \
U l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
w
ow
w
U
a
a
O
x
y
U p,
an
� ° O
�, w
N v O y
Cd U
o O cd
v . co
U5 rn O O O O w 40. cd
v y C `� o x En y R,
cz
Co to 0
to Cd
^C U A O 4, O, sue. O O 'to
0 -c Cd
x ¢ c'ci o O 4.
Cd
p., a ¢ w .axaa � L F, x ¢ QaOQ � Q3a � � U Quf c-" Ua
O
F • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
k k k k k k
k k k k k k k k
\
.]
as
(
0 o
( 732
k
d q ®
t cd § a
' 8 � u � §
2 = u \ -0
c § u
/ & % § / n 3 \
\
[ k § § ? a /
( \ ° k ;.. d 2 ® k
k f � §� \ 7 { "
20 6\ S § o
§ / o§ &f§ k tk a§
ƒ
U e Q U e ¥ U * o Q e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
z
0
U
O o
z
b
c�
0
r
a�
U
pQ
Cd
G V
R' N
O
W EO .0 O
> O O b
cz
E "O ,� U N O .�
co 0 0 (U T3 O O y 0 0 0 0 d
Ea. O CO 0G' `N, U
-0 o
cd � 0
to cd
a0i 0 v a_? o E
y
O U w .
co
N 'CS N y c y i C y O
Q .-
o +
vii y Q y 3 '.0 rte+ dto•� � r0+ �
N 0 to C13 to ..M.'
O E E a� yon C
a, rr� v� U aaF-� Utn Cl.
O
H • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
0 =
k � �
® 2 f
U) ƒ /
E $ £ »
0 °
R § k /
/ E tm
k
u k /
CD u %
0 @ 0 E
2
k / % 72
2 E§
-0 E -1.14 />1
E 2 % > 2
CL
//
2 t cn 0 E
k � E E 0 w
2f @ S § v
■ Eq / 02
- o = /
75 a
J k k n \ q 2
ao 2 �2 e
§ e >
:3 c a s @ 2
E 2k 0 § / k
§ k \ �f E
■ > o
% ± 0 0 Q
LU nk k) k k§ @ k ¢
c E
ƒ k 0 � § � 0
. 7m f 2 � 3 . � $ 0 0.
N Ez 2 \ ƒ 2 - a) §
« -0 ao �
a E 2 m w o c 0
> 0 E » / 0t \
CL W 2 $ k A cn 0 cn / > c
■ > t ° m @ - 2 = Q o a %
f @0 ƒ / k @R d0- § � �
x E / k k k b ° k ƒ $ 0 7 2 2
U) � » £ >
c £ t / % q £ 2 a@ C \ 2 z R / // E o
S m E m : 2 Q e © ■ E c cL r - � : _ ' 2 c g
% 0 \ 0 0 E § 2 a u) 2 0 x § 0 f / a -ƒ E §
§ 0 2 m E �� > 0 7 0 @ ■ E c 2 2 c c f § a) @
> § \ / �Q � � o =3M v2 § n E2a� �� v
@ . � � oo@ c ■ _ m � a ■ - c t2EU) oo7 . � � 20
. 0 -0 01- eo _ : � � @ � ■ -Fu 000 E % � $ o ■ : Q = « tom
CL m � c o & m « 2 § > � @ C, @ 2 2 U E � @ @ e ° m
� £ � � 7 c o@ 0. o = o, E x » = o s x � « CL m
@ c E 0 _ $ 9 0 a@ m a ■ . 0 4 ■ C 2 u) c ■ o E m a
= 2 % af c .g- o 02At ■ 2 2 � of 0 Eft 2
2 . ± @f CL S(u z -:5 CL= f � ■ - ■ o0 § / / � 2 � « � ® � % / ®
2 @ o ■ m c o o in E m n k @ ° t Q c - o _ o o : - o - §
U) � ° � T 1 ° ° S $ q k f \ S S o L- E e >
& 2 / 0 t @ ® 0 2 t _ . 2 m E o R R .
■ o $ � ■ � a 7 c -0 \ . = f = § / m e x o :
O
CL/ / � / � / � f / � / � / � � � / � / / / � / � � � � / � / / / w
i
a
c
m
cn
U
(d
a
E
a)
>
Q>
a)
C
m
C w
a)
O
a
C
Y a)
3O
L
C p
O
M a
0 z
a)
vJ
O 0
-0
C N N
M E are
p O N
C > V i
rna N x
N D
(D = m
E e
L
a m
c a o t
- U
a to O T a) a)
'0 U sG»
O o N N C m >
m U) °O > C O
Y m a s m c +-• a
m 0 a) m t N U .� L ,
:_
° 'T m a s CD ca0 p CO C O O O
C N C U p C L _ L
c vi > m °a m 3 L a m 0 .r N
we 0 a E m .m LoL rn a? � a:= °
}' o °o E a c w a> c c y E cu
CL
D O a 0) V N ai (� ° N U) co U cn c = " to ` (N
c M m � .S c ° y ca c o 0 N m > m mw
� s a � a m U) m m o 0 U N .0 �; c
m m � ° m 0 J 0 ca U � CU 't
a? a� ° co � a� 3p0 � � � 2,ED o 4) �cmcc° omr ron
L O X
(yQ 3 ,L w a) a) (D O a E = E N N y m C ` -O 0 0 c E O U
U) rn m c •� N X C � . m c o 3 cw 3 0 � Y m = E Es c N a E
0 0 a) a) o a+, '� rn O •- p 0 ,� a? a) - >,s E O)— E o p v U) c w
c � m � mrn � � � H000aci � a°i co Cc 0o m > 33 'a�im -. w �av
Lin . p -� a� U �- QY _ rn cam _ � cn _ a -C 0 m c � 3a) > _W
CL.5 h m m L a rn •ea a m ° a ° m "- 0 a Z O ° O p " ° io = >
o -° a ° .0 U U M (0 �O N O m m �C �' C U1 C L 0 m L a) p L E U C E •� �+ .
a > o E Q m - m >, o L a} m m N > U U p u) N E m 3 L O O m ,
N o o ._ = a) m + '� L O •N L > C cL0 t v_> cL0 .� p m p 0 .E .�- a) 0 0 0 0 N O. N
�OC� UQaYUmU (n � Qa = (D < U) 0 a- c z _, -, a - QOUF- !
r
�
§
k
a)
E
0
§ §
Co > © c
� 0 C: @ -a
o a) a) $ = 2
CL o $ 0 0 0)
k = k \ E 7 ° c
Cn
E C £
% a 2 ° u c
Cu _@ � 2 a . .
2 ' o o ■
k § 2 $ f : o a 0 @ § >, o ■
c 2 E � 0-- Cu 0- 0 c o c q � ■ f o
0 § « � E o f E 2 c § 2 0 >q 7 ' a
x E ° 7 > S % > $ ? o r o k w m 2 b£ 2 Cu
2 0 /o 0 .— % % a) a 2 2 2 2 2 -/ o c " E
U a _ a o o & 3 o E § 7 & $ » 0 2 n >, 2 cu
c w@ o c 2 � � 5 = a 0) (a. 5 2 E f ` o C_
° m k 0 Cu m . ® Q a C a 2 a > o c o 2 0 � � o
m = o / m \ % c@ > ■ ■ �t o E U5F CU 22 �« "CuCY) k / � � � � 22 ¢ a� /' % @E .
m � m Co o E a o w £ _ � c - o @ @ -5 – » t
M
CL " :5 Q � a t ■ o c :2 0@ f @ o o ■ o c o
. . . . . . . . . . . . L)—
Lu .. f � / f � f / * � ®
i
C
U ,
x
N
d
C
d
V
C
N ,,
lQ N
•V w
C N >
m
_C N
LL
V �
R C CD C
d L ?_ L
N C
� � C N
C > rLN O O
L
aci (1) cn
J O
L L >+
O
U U y N O
p ' p O r U N — " O >,
d a N N r N O _ N E `� `!
C •C L C " .L E EL U C C
o Q N L C C V w O N U p U d
L N C LO w N N o O O O W N L L
•c N C cu N >,+- N N O N N N
W N `� N N p a c 'a .�. N C y= N
d N L Q N N N �O C U p N L %..
>, Uw — E N U E o •rn
ea cu
>, 0 E +r N c
t0 U O 4) a) i o -0 U O 0 N
- jLL C) UO9 � c . M •E4) o o
O 2J F j
r+�
T
U
C
N
•U
w
N
U)
C
O
Y
U
C C
O C
E o
C U
O
c to
N T
cm L
c ` C"
> O m
N N O
� C w
� c �
C O L
N a)
N (n cnn
Q C N
N N T a)
CL r_+ 7
mco n E An
E m E E .�
C U U .`
p
N N 0) L
.2) E o d x
N N (O
U a) > > m .,
N O (a c u)
v
cn E p O p p
co E E cu
m v ca rn m m E
U a? m p o c > aci p
o (u E
cr C Lll U C L .0 3 N
Q _
p o (D M 0 o V
d a`) o E � o -0 Cca aNiay 3o a E- 3
c o °' V � Nm oaxi ° c w � � N � o CL.-
T 0 N �' O N c �. N ca �� = � n E ` O O � U �
._>'+ p U N Y O 'C to c O n 0 m m O n.L fl m
� U U n c o (0 -- N X p U .�, C U w 0 c 0 0 � O N O C j
3 a N C U V E U C p O Z N L N C (0 +�+ +' 0) O f0 U
p O
(d U) C L C m E (0 N O L N to T y +L+ N O U `�- C ) O E `
o Y o o o pa (o`o ° c o CD `° �a c E m CL L) p 3 r .Cc°) w cn -0 ° c
a- �. c c '� E
£ m v O rn _ . 5 o L -m u, v o U rn c p m o w E
o C L L U O � � - Y O c L n m e C- p � C +' E w o
a E O W -0 � 3:.W- M o o 3 M O O M o °'N C ° c O O C.-- °- a) c E E "
c o 0- a) o E (com0 Ear > >, c.> oa� oN �e ° E_ ° ° 0
m N .a- N p () yT, Q $ N p �, rnN Y N rnm c U
> c f0 to N ±+ E (0 to N " � � N c n o O V L c c m CD 0 c 0 U p U0 +-T' O m N C N - 0 > O " •= 4 ` � � N .O > U to -O o m " ' o p p
d > f0U N � L � L � 'O � L p N m cm N � E U O O � .�L U N �.L N O n. no cc a)
•N o o n E .E N o (D '3 rn > o H L L Y Y Q a� t ` N E E c
m o >, (D C x rnco w cn F o `. c = ono 0 o c o •°-' m m m o .� o (D � m p m 0 0 m
ui O° > � U !j = UU) 0- PC� ao m NQ � z vax � � � o = = aaO � � � UU .
i
�k
c
CL
0
a)
a)
L
m
U
4)
L re
O
Y
V�
0
m C
3
E .�
EL
O m
U Q
C O w
O N
U
N m
> a
a) o
.r c
rnN �
o a`) x
to y
m
a� vi
(D a)
c °' E
m E O
O X N
�
W C
0 ..
C - 75
E :5 m U
T L O N O
O a
w U O
O
N m U N
w
En
> m 3
U O O -
Q N
m m 3
m L
a_�C
m m
N m o w
L E `" >
" o rn c
o
rn � mE
C O U O
—O U
O c V �O
w 3 C N
O O m U
U C U C
N
O N m
_ Q
m
a)
L
a
0
a)
a)
-O
0
.r
rn
c
m
3
a)
0
L
a
a�
L
O
C
m
E
� C
O
E
O
T O
C
CL
a) a)
0
U a) m
m
'a O C
U �
C a
O a) a
L
N
O L O
cm
N E
'�
� N N
C
� m U
U) U O
CL N
•— c c �
i O a) m
ci .E
a o U
a) a a)
C CL E 0
a)
O U c
E > U) 0) O
a)
0 N 0 m m `� co
_ C 7
>
..+ mC ' 0
(D
r- cc C N Q �:3
C O
y E 0 m -0 -0 0 U) 0 > m
0 3: to N O C
CO N N tm lJ l p 0 E "a C 'U m n m _0 .0 0 w
U o Q m C 0 L O C N O Z �' .. .�
a) E o L a) a) " 0 U O -00 a) E o Z a) C C cu
a) a) 0
(n O d 0 U E .0.. C •C C N O ` a) 0
+' O U 0 E a) = c
L a) cn fl 3 rn a a a•� c •� o fl E '� n. co C)�a
U > Q cn (n m m c m m v� E 0 o E c o ` .c
Z m0 'U •0- m w N U s C a..2 a) 3 0 U o U) X E -0 0 > a) O a) 0 7 7 C'1 O Q
> U a) >
� ncn 'cc0 � aa)) � WcoQSwA2:3E � 3 � 0omm � c � o O
� ca� E c-- o m m m = .�n rn x C � 'E coo � cEo � � 'CD ° --0 E 0 0 C:CD
C � 0" E °
O m " 0 a- b) i ate- -- o a) a) 0 a) 'a () a) `� o) to c c cn m m 0 c 0 ' - C 0 c ± �O N -a
CL c 0 a m 0 N c N a) " �c -a 0 '- a c o o T O L U m y Z >,.0 a) m 0 .«- a)ca a)
O a a) ' a) �- to 0 N a m 0 - U a) .N a) a U m -0 a) O)v -a N .
v� 0) '> ° c H m c m U n� rn > > n a) a ` c c c a)
o a c a m o Q c� m a) > 0) 0)N c c �. ca c »- � ;o .. �, m ) m o rn.— ca o f
Ucco a > o Ea , 15, oc[ n:3Nami 'm '` umiami m0o)� umioEflcoowa� �
CL 0 m 0 L a) 0 0 0 C a) m •+ `� O .- (D > ►. w a) m 0 �p a) +. 0 a o + L �' m U -
OU -1 U` OI- 0U' UQa = UmU (� � Qa = (D < < UUU � 2 � � ca20UcnC7Qt— tnU
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
i
� ~ U
O
L
C ;
D
N N
C
O � N
' C
U Q O
U
C O
E CD
3 C C
E C U
U
a) 2 m
U
� C •
a) Y a
O > p c
Q
E N m `
m c o L
0 0 a3i
N ao
:3 a) N N
U Q C O
•C O m ..
p
r. C
3 E N E E
o C E
O O
'o O U
m w C L N
N m 0)
_O
O O N C
Z °) m aa)) o °O
O " E c0 i 3
Nma� a, x
U m w o m
o a p N E a) ui
� t � m
., CC cu
a) c m
O p cu U E a) L) 0 w
C L
m N C ?+ a) O C
a) m L a) o m m r-
>1 3
E �_ m m E C p p > m o
O p C- p 0 a) C m a N
rn m E o O — o 0
> 3 0 v o m U o y c « x �o v a cn
E ma C m L C U V N 4) d m c +. m O U
O L N o c U a>i '� N (n
>, E � EEi cO CM oU ° <n cam � o � � > N
7 > C p>w, co 0 X O C co
CO c O�U >+ C 7 C U L C m 'a 0O N •U E V C O O Z m C c CD Ca p U Q ` N � O G U m v- O N O c C U y N U O N m
fl N 00 p r U .c r- N m p C
ca
p a) E — N Q N U .:
U) N w V Q N C C N O a) E p c a) y U 7 y E w a) y.>-_. N UO U
V N M co C 'E p) C N ` U ` p p N ` 0 N F > � x U cm U C > U d 3
a) b rn a� ° N = m .. O a) rn m Z' O a) �, �c w c L O Q O _ Z O O m C: C O "O m
U C > N C C U $ E O N O L O. a a— rn U �•
N7 E U N C LO w a) N C ° N m w E F- •C m O O O m O O N w N N U � N O NO >
O j a) U m D E �; p N L ,F- o ' 7 E N N E O > - F- O m C 0 '',� Q p L
C N a) C m 0 >% a) () >, 0 0 >, N O U
m O m a) y= O N O a > > c <0 O 7 — `. N N �` O E c°)o w a) N ` " C U a 0
E „u 0 v .� co m �% Q D c •( 0 0 ' o m N C N 0 0 N 0 0 > Z >, Z O t ca m e
L U U m O O C U .N �. j L D7 Y CO m N (� O N ` U C o
c N c > U V '� N D L cr E c N $ N •3 N rn N > cD N �) N rn v O t fl
D U Q N O p �, 3 O m m >' m d x QI m a) N N E — L O o 0 `� d 7 m m 0 C > rn C
U) QinwQ ° winaa > � c) ! mL) U) ao > HC� CL U' Q2z 02U) � w` � = !Lo
M M M M M M IT 19T LO U') U) LO LO U') LO Lf) LO LO U') LO t1) U') U') LC)
2
m m
2 # m
■ m
� 0.
E
>
e £ ■
§ k / a)
� a \
c ƒ (D
w a) 2 2
m E
cn 2 ■
c � �
E / 0 CD E 0
\
m m � E
/ ƒ / 0 k
E m E 2
E C - m CL
cn
(D
CL R §
£ \ @ o \ 7 q
t 2 2 a
) 2
R k 2 q 'a § ° E
°a ■ tf2�$ kk2 .
o o( o t E 0 E f f KJ E IE f
o ± f
-
_
m
c m ■ § ■ a
@ @ _ $ m m
� \ % k ° k
m £ m m o
) 0 » 0 � $ � � 2 w
> f � z 0 k � kE
E « 2@ o $ E 2 > U)
2 � Kk / k \ - § 7 caCL q
f 2@ 7 % f § k / S £ r
$ k c @ ° v 5 a: m 0 � % £ °
m c o � 2 d E � m @ c e
a a
ca. a) t
CU o -0 cm ' off � 0 q £
o : o % ■ o ■ 7 Cc& 5 £ > x o M 0.® f@ 0. » E
\ 22 22 %22 ? 2 � � � f � «
CD E — M : 2 t $ 2 v g 2 -Z E k E E E / 2
w « / o ■ m m « o © c � ._
§ K » = f o a e E $ Q 2 = c o o $ ± a « o@ �'
x �/ % / 7 c 2 E C ' > / E � 4 % � f 2 2 0' « U k / o E= S
f o o u) (D Z-- v o c c o Ca o W � E � '
■ ; E 22 0 � � 0 _ 2 @ � o2U m ° = o � ■ SQ
a ■ — £ @ @ � o— c o m -0 b
2 0 & § % 3 2 k S 2 t 2 0 - [ a 2 § L 2 a f o a 2 f :g
o &' c@@ E o E ■ Q c ■ o ® 2 o — E £ G o c m o
2 o x » m m 5 o@ 2 E K c ° c & » o 2 § = E o E N § �
a ' o@ r- ci o c o \ o ® a © = m = 2 E ' d = = c
c % t t o@ o 0 o E ■ 2 \ § g c g o � � Q £ @ c c - 2 E Q
§ ) 2 0 7 \2 / « / 5 S 0 f o $ f o 7 k o 0 � 2 c � ' § C k 2 t > / C
o @ c o S o o@ E o a a o o o _ @ o
E c � � ■ o � o a @ a U v 72 � U@ o ■ ■ E t E c
= 2 / o = ) 2 O . 2 ) f / a) 2 % m � t v 0 7 " R E t R » @ 2 /
.2)-a 0 # o 2) c . o ■ m o@ o = > _ o ■ o o . 5 o 0 0 0 > Q . £ o m
. . . . . . . . . . . . / fN ® � \ f \ � � \ � f / � � / f � / � f � � [ o M & / C
_ _ — — N 04 N N g N q q q N a q N q N N cq n n n n
i
o
L
7
O
C Y
c O
o
� U
Y O
E
U
w a)
O
() >
L O
a) a
E E
U �
O C
CL °
p O
a) i0
n c iw
Y U
C
O
o C a)
U 3 U)
U) .
N C N
c '
CL 0 o
E ° ° o
m
Fo--
c o 0
3 cu
c a) c ° () d CD
m Z m
a) rn U O C O a)
•� O
� N N .n .ca a) E c
c� m Ln to a (a
N o C N D a) � _p a
} a) a) o ca C a) C E
C ° E U C O a) > O U
a) a >1
C
E 7 >' O L6 U 'N Q
C c c aa)
O U
o C E > N j a)N E N p))� °E O a) 0 0
w o`a)
co T a) o w N C _ N C O Q 0 .�
7 - p C U O 3 Q .- a N O o O '�
Q E N L y O C > E,N L p)LL1 ;� p co
N a) y a.- " -
a i 0 L N 0 w C O a C a N .Q " LO N cn 2 co O
U i .° c >, c a ca> m a= t c ' ca
i Ca rn c o v
fl N p N .0 0 w a) C'`� +� m Z +L+ y �,N - U o U '� C w O ca
A -0 C �' a) U) « O O a) �- N - O U) C O N U C E a U O O c U N C
o4- o c o ° cu >' v o ° rn � :? ow a� "' °. = m c°� Q) s � � � 3 m c�u
C c O o C c U E L N O` N v w .0 E ca a.a tC/1 a ° ° = y C C .N
c O N V v) V 0 >, c ° ,� _ j Y L w. O p) a'p O j N c a.� '0 � N N O O O E
O U N U) a) co Co O d a C N N O aj O 0 N N O N 0 0 0 - N N O N Q = � E W M
p U `~ L •C Ln a) C N L U) C' U 0) LO rte. > w' C C C O C O C E E
° o o ° a ° aE ° a� E c _ a) N a) ° U) rn._ m = co o " v � U "' ° Lo 0 0
Oa 3 E ,O Oa a) a >, a) C a) j N O N +C+ .� Q)` co i
§
/
�
c
m
§
$
2
/ \
k
E
§ K
.E 2
� k
k o
= c
:a
0 $
% \ \
-0 a m
§ § 0
RLKZ
D 0
0 c k (
Ua�¥ 0
2 $ g S m
$
2f � 2
00 - m
4,� _
0 Sm/
3 § E °
a Cc � c .
c a Ca m 2
Mc _ cn
Ef E (D .
oƒ /" / E
v E
t 2 % R S
L)2 r ° o
M 7 » C: ■
c S ƒ / c
_ e
E : k5 2
Q I o w <
/ / / / /