Loading...
08-17-11 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda MEETING NOTICE City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, August 17, 2011 – 7:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street A. Agenda Review B. Special Order of Business 1. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to Waterfront Zoning C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members D. Announcements, Updates and Reports E. Action Items 1. Neighborhood Investment Incentive Fund Applications – Titus Towers and Northside National Night Out Events (memos and resolutions) 2. Proposed Amendment to Waterfront Zoning (concept memo, revised draft ordinance, map) 3. Historic Designation of Two College Avenue Properties – John Snaith and Grand View Houses (reports and resolutions) F. Discussion Items 1. Coddington Road Rezoning Proposal 2. Implementation of 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines – Next Steps (staff memo,,notes from August 1 facilitated meeting) 3. Priority Setting for Responses to Hydrofracking Concerns 4. Planning and Development Departmental Workplan (draft Workplan) G. Approval of Minutes H. Adjournment Questions about the agenda should be directed to Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson, (jdotson@cityofithaca.org or 351-5458) or to the appropriate staff person at the Department of Planning & Development (274-6550). Back-up material is available in the office of the Department of Planning & Development. Please note that the order of agenda items is tentative and subject to change. If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, August 16, 2011. # B1 LEGAL NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, New York, will hold a public hearing to consider the proposal to amend Chapter 325 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Ithaca in order to establish a new consolidated Waterfront Zoning District (WF-1). The proposed WF-1 zoning district would allow for all of the primary uses listed in the WF-1 district, with the exception of drive through restaurants and parking lots would only be allowed with a special permit. In addition, all new construction in this district would have to undergo mandatory design review. The allowable building heights for this district are proposed at 3-5 stories, with the exception of water dependant uses, which would not be subject to the minimum building height and except for lots that are less than 110 feet in depth(measured from the waterfront), which have a 2 story minimum building height requirement. All buildings along the flood control channel must be setback 25’ from the water. All other properties bordering the waterfront, that are greater than 110’ in depth, measured from the waterfront, must maintain a 15 foot no build area along the waterfront. These properties may construct buildings which overhang the 15 foot no build area, if they provide a public access walkway along the waterfront. Any building overhang must be at least 12 feet off of the ground. Properties that are less than 110’ in depth are exempt from the 15 foot setback. In addition, buildings facing the waterfront must have a ten foot step back that is 2-3 stories in height. Lots that are less than 110’ in depth, measured from the waterfront, are exempt from the upper-story stepback. In addition, all properties greater than 110’ in depth may also be exempt from the upper story stepback requirement, if they provide a public walkway along the waterfront. The proposal is to change the zoning designation from the current zoning to the newly established WF-1 designation for the following tax parcels: 16.-2-1.1, 17.-1-1.2, 17.-1-2, 23.-1-1, 23.-2-1, 23.-2-2, 24.-1-1, 37.-1-1, 37.-1-2, 37.-1-3, 37.-1-4.1, 37.-1-4.2, 43.-1-1, 43.-1-2, 43.-1-3, 43.-1-4, 43.-1-5, 43.-2-1.42, 43.-2-11, 43.-2-2.2, 52.-1-1.1, 52.-1-1.2, 52.-1-1.3, 52.-2-3, 52.-2-4, 52.-3-1.12, 525.-6-1, 58.-1-1, 58.-1-2, 58.-1-3, 58.-1-4, 58.-1- 5, 58.-1-6, 58.-1-7, 58.-2-1.1, 58.-2-1.2, 58.-2-1.3, 58.-3-1, 58.-3-2, 58.-3-3, 58.-3-4, 58.- 3-7, 58.-4-1.13, 58.-4-1.2, 58.-4-10.2, 58.-4-2.2, 58.-5-1, 58.-6-1, 58.-7-1.1, 58.-7-1.2, 58.-7-3, 58.-7-5, 58.-7-8, 59.-1-2, 59.-8-1, 72.-6-2, 72.-7-10, 73.-1-10, 73.-1-11, 73.-1-9, 73.-2-1, 73.-2-3, 73.-3-1, 73.-3-2, 73.-3-3, 73.-4-1, 73.-5-2.1, 73.-5-3, 73.-6-1, 73.-8-1, 73.-9-10, 73.-9-12, 73.-9-4, 73.-9-9, 78.-2-4, 79.-10-1, 79.-1-1, 79.-1-2.1, 79.-1-2.2, 79.-1-3, 79.-1-4, and 79.-2-1.2. The public hearing will be held in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street, in the City of Ithaca, New York, on Wednesday, August 17, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of the proposed zoning amendments (and description of existing zoning classifications) can be viewed in-house at the Department of Planning & Development, 3rd Floor City Hall, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York. JoAnn Cornish Director of Planning & Development July 29, 2011 # E1 a TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Megan Wilson, Planner RE: Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund DATE: August 8, 2011 Attached is an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF) and other materials pertaining to this year’s National Night Out (NNO) events held on Tuesday, August 2nd. The applicant is the Titus Towers Tenant Council, an organization that has sponsored the annual NNO event in their neighborhood for over 10 years. The group represents low-moderate income residents living in the Southside neighborhood who spend considerable hours of volunteer time organizing and conducting the NNO events. In past years the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive funds have supported celebrations in many city neighborhoods for this national occasion that focuses attention on neighborhood safety and solidarity. Expenditures related to the event include food, beverages, sound equipment, DJs, t-shirts, and give-aways for kids, all of which meet criteria for reimbursement. By putting together this event on behalf of the Southside community, the Titus Towers Tenant Council is furthering aims of the fund to support resident initiatives to strengthen city neighborhoods. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 # E1 a Planning & Economic Development Committee August 17, 2011 RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the Titus Towers Tenant Council for National Night Out, August 2011 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few residents, and WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and organizing neighborhood events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities, and WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and WHEREAS, the Titus Towers Tenant Council has submitted a completed application for reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past years have generally ranged from $400 – $650 for the annual National Night Out event, held this year on Tuesday, August 2, 2011, and WHEREAS, while this annual event is sponsored by the Titus Towers Tenants Council, notice is circulated throughout the neighborhood, and the event provides an opportunity for socializing with diverse groups of Southside residents, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the request from the Titus Towers Tenant Council in an amount up to $300.00 for reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts. To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: August 11, 2011 Re: Proposal to Revise the Waterfront Zoning Districts Enclosed for your review is a revised copy of the proposed waterfront zoning district. This proposal was previously discussed at the July 20, 2011 Planning Committee Meeting. After the meeting concerns were raised from members of the Common Council and the Planning Board regarding the clarity of the intent of the revised zoning. In order to address these concerns, staff has redrafted the ordinance to include two waterfront zoning districts rather than just one. This revised ordinance contains a WF-1 and a WF-2 zoning district. The proposed boundaries of these districts are displayed on the enclosed map, entitled, “Proposed Waterfront Re-Zoning-August 2011.” All properties located within the WF-1 district will have a minimum building height of 3 stories, with the exception of water dependant uses and small accessory structures. In addition, properties within the WF-1 district are required to have a 15 foot setback from the waterfront. The WF-1 district also requires a stepback for properties with frontage along the waterfront, whereby, the first 10 feet of any structure facing the water must be within 2-3 stories and then the remainder may be within 3-5 stories. As an incentive, properties may be exempt from the stepback requirement, it they provide a public walkway within the required 15 foot setback. All properties within the WF-2 district are exempt from the setback and stepback requirements and have a minimum building height of 2 stories. All other use and area requirements are proposed to remain the same as the existing waterfront zoning districts. If the committee is in agreement with the proposed ordinance, then staff will re-circulate the materials and return next month with comments. If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at 274-6410. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 8/12/2011 Page 1 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” TO AMEND THE WATERFRONT ZONING DISTRICT AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Section 325-4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Establishment of Zoning Districts”, be amended in order to establish two new consolidated Waterfront Zoning Districts, the WF –1 and the WF-2 Districts. Section 1. Declaration of Legislative Findings and Purpose The Common Council finds that this Ordinance will consolidate the various waterfront zoning districts in order to create two new Waterfront Zoning Districts, WF-1 and WF-2, which will: 1. Maintain public access to the waterfront. 2. Guide development in this area of the City for the purpose of allowing for the highest and best use of the waterfront property. 3. Allow the City to enhance the value of waterfront property in this area of the City. 4. Allow the City to create an area on the water for multi- story buildings intended for mixed use. 5. Ensure that new construction along the waterfront be designed in a manner to protect views to and from the waterfront and to enhance the pedestrian experience along the waterfront, wherever possible. 6. Ensure that building facades on the public rights of way contribute to a coherent streetscape, promoting street- level pedestrian uses. Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-3 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Definitions and Word Usage”, is hereby amended to add the following definitions: 1. “Water-dependent facilities" is defined as those structures or works associated with industrial, maritime, Deleted: 8/9/2011 Deleted: a Deleted: Deleted: ( Deleted: ) Deleted: one Deleted: (WF-1) Deleted: Help to m Deleted: creating a unique waterfront experience Deleted: dense Deleted: having 8/12/2011 Page 2 of 7 recreational, educational, or fisheries activities that require location at or near the shoreline. 2. “Water-dependent activity” is defined as an activity thatcannot exist outside of the waterfront area and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation. These activities include, but are not limited to, ports, water-use industries, marinas and other boat docking structures, public beaches and other public water-oriented recreation areas, and fisheries activities. Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-41 C.(1) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Design Review. Applicability. Design Review shall apply to all proposals for:” is hereby amended to add the WF-1 and WF-2 districts and should read as follows: New construction, exterior alterations, or additions to any structure within the zones designated B-1b; B-2b; B- 2c; B-2d; all CBD zones, including CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD- 100, and CBD-120; C-SU, and the WF-1 and WF-2 districts. Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to change the zoning designation of parcels 16.-2-1.1, 17.-1-1.2, 17.-1-2, 23.-1-1, 23.-2-1, 23.-2-2, 37.-1-1, 37.-1-2, 37.-1-4.1, 43.-1-4, , 52.-1-1.1, 52.-1-1.2, 52.-1-1.3, 58.-1-2, 58.-1-3, 58.-1-4, 58.-1-5,58.-1-6, 58.-1-7, 58.-2-1.1, 58.-2-1.2, 58.-2- 1.3, 58.-7-1.1, 58.-7-1.2, 58.-7-3, 58.-7-5, 58.-7-8, 73.-1-10, 73.-1-11, 73.-1-9, 73.-8-1, 73.-9-10, 73.-9-12, 73.-9-4, and 73.-9-9, and a portion of parcels 525.-6-1, 24.-1-1, 43.-1-1, 43.-1-5, 58.-1-1 from M-1 (Marine Commercial District), WF-1a, WF-1b, WF-1c, and WF-1d, and I-1to the Waterfront Zoning District-1 (WF-1), and to change the designation of parcels 37.- 1-3, 37.-1-4.2, 43.-1-1, 43.-1-2, 43.-1-3, 43.-1-5, 43.-2-1.42, 59.-8-1, 52.-2-3, 52.-2-4, 58.-3-1, 58.-3-2, 58.-3-3, 58.-3-4, 58.-3-7, 58.-4-1.13, 58.-4-1.2, 58.-4-10.2, 58.-4-2.2, 58.-5-1, 58.-6-1, 59.-1-2, 72.-6-2, 73.-2-1, 73.-2-3, 73.-3-1, 73.-3-2, 73.-3-3, 73.-5-2.1, 73.-5-3, 73.-6-1, 79.-1-1, 79.-1-2.1, 79.-1- 2.2, 79.-1-3, 79.-1-4, 79.-10-1,79.-2-1.2 and a portion of parcels 525.-6-1, 72.-7-10, 52.-3-1.12,from WF-1a, WF-1b, WF-1c, WEDZ-1a, SW-2, and M-1 to the Waterfront Zoning District - 2(WF- 2), and to change the designation of parcel 73.-4-1, and a portion of parcel 58.-1-1 from WF-1a and WF-1c to P-1, as shown on the attached map entitled “Proposed Waterfront Rezoning- August 2011”. Deleted: 8/9/2011 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: An Deleted: is water-dependent if it Deleted: and Deleted: parcels 73.-9-9, 73.-9-10, 73.-9-12, and 73.- 9-4, which are currently designated as I-1 Deleted: the area currently zoned Deleted: 0 8/12/2011 Page 3 of 7 Section 5. Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to establish district regulations for the new WF-1 and WF-2 districts as follows: Permitted Primary Uses 1. Any use permitted in B-2 except establishments where food or beverages are intended to be served or consumed by persons in automobiles. 2. Recreational or cultural facility such as a park, playground, art museum, fishing pier or yacht club. 3. Public Recreation. 4. Boatel. 5. Sale, rental, repair or storage of marine related recreation equipment such as boats, marine engines, sails, cabin equipment. 6. Light manufacture of marine recreation related products involving substantial hand fabrication such as sails, boat hulls, cabin fittings. By Special Permit of the Board of Appeals 7. Parking Lot 8. Parking Garage Permitted Accessory Uses 1. Any accessory use permitted in the B-2 zone. 2. Boat fuel dispensing. 3. Snowmobile sales, service, rental in conjunction with boat sales, rental or service. 4. Storage of marine related recreation equipment such as boats, marine engines, sails, cabin equipment as it relates to permitted primary uses under zoning 5. Parking Lot Off-Street Parking Requirements – None Off-Street Loading Requirements – None Area in Square Feet – 3,000 Minimum lot width – 30 Maximum Building Heights: 1. Maximum 5 stories, A minimum of 12 feet for the first story measured from finished grade, and a maximum of 12 feet for each additional story, for a maximum of 63 feet, with an additional 5 feet for cornice. All new construction is subject to a mandatory design review process. Deleted: 8/9/2011 Deleted: - Deleted: Minimum lot depth- 60, no new lots may be created which are less than 60 feet in depth.¶ 8/12/2011 Page 4 of 7 (Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, Section 325-3.B., Definitions and Word Usage, HEIGHT OF BUILDING) Maximum percent lot coverage by buildings 1. 100% lot coverage allowed except as may be required by the Planning and Development Board during Site Plan Review, for provision of pedestrian ways and protection of view corridors. Yard Dimensions 1. Front Yard – None 2. Side Yards – None 3. Rear Yard – None Minimum Height 1. WF-1 – Minimum of 3 stories and 36 feet, except for water dependent facilities, which have no minimum story or building height limit.Accessory structures up to 400 square feet in size have no minimum building height limit. 2. WF-2 – Minimum of 2 stories and 24 feet, except for water dependent facilities, which have no minimum story or building height limit. Accessory structures up to 400 square feet in size have no minimum building height limit. Additional Restrictions 1. Lookout Point Restrictions - The first 100 feet south from the northern tip of Inlet Island is to remain a no build area. In addition, in the first 300 feet south from the northern tip of Inlet Island no building may be constructed that is greater than 1 story in height. Lookout Point Deleted: 8/9/2011 Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 31.5 pt, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline Formatted: Indent: Left: 180 pt Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 18 pt, Pattern: Clear Deleted: 2 Deleted: 24 Deleted: and except for a Deleted: Deleted: ¶ ¶ Deleted: ¶ 8/12/2011 Page 5 of 7 2. Flood Control Channel Restrictions – For all properties that are located along the Flood Control Channel as shown on the City of Ithaca Zoning Map, or properties that directly abut the Department of Environmental Conservation twenty five foot permanent easement, no construction is permitted within the first 25 feet along the Flood Control Channel, measured from the top of the existing bank. The first 15 feet of the no build area is to be unobstructed space, but may have removable vertical elements, so that maintenance equipment can access the Flood Control Channel. Outdoor furnishings, such as benches may be placed in the remaining 10 feet adjacent to the building but must be kept to no more than 25 feet in length with 50 feet of clear spaces between to allow for vehicular access. 3. Step Back Requirement- For all properties within the WF-1 zoning district that have frontage on the waterfront, the first 10 feet of any new construction facing the waterfront, is restricted to be at least 2 stories and not more than 3 stories in height. As an incentive, buildings that provide a public walkway along the waterfront shall be exempt from the step back requirement. Step Back Requirement 4. Setback Requirement a. All properties within the WF-1 zoning district that are located along the waterfront are to maintain a 15 foot no build area measured from the shoreline or Deleted: 8/9/2011 Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 18 pt, Pattern: Clear Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 54 pt, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Justified, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: ¶ Deleted: located along the waterfront Deleted: ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ Deleted: Cayuga Inlet and Six Mile Creek Deleted: ’ Deleted: along the waterfront Deleted: property line located along the waterfront 8/12/2011 Page 6 of 7 from the inner boundary of the easement for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail where such easement exists. (Refer to Code of the City of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Zoning, Section 325-3.B., Definitions and Word Usage, HABITABLE SPACE, NONHABITABLE SPACE, STORY, PUBLIC SPACE) Section 6. Chapter 325, Section 325-9(C) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Special Permits” is hereby amended to add a new subsection to be known as (4.)(i) Parking in the Waterfront Zone to read as follows: “Parking areas will be permitted as a primary use in the Waterfront Zone WF-1 and WF-2 districts by special permit and only if they are open to the public or if they are intended to serve the needs of multiple businesses.” Section 7. Chapter 325, Section 325-20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca entitled “Off-Street Parking” is hereby amended to add the WF-1 and WF-2 Districts to Section 325- 20(C)(3)(a) to read as follows: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, there are no requirements as to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces in the following zoning districts: WEDZ-1a, CBD-60, CBD-85, CBD-100, CBD-120, B-1b, B-2c, WF-1 and WF-2” Section 8. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning map and Deleted: 8/9/2011 Deleted: Buildings may hang over the 15’ no build area and place support columns in this area if the overhang is at least 15' above the finished grade directly below and a public access walkway is provided along the waterfront. Any support columns must be placed within 3’of the property line. In addition, the fourth and fifth stories of a building located within 15 of the waterfront must step back in height a minimum of 10' measured from the exterior wall of the second and third storyof the building. Deleted: ¶ Deleted: ¶ Flood Control Channel¶ For properties located along the Flood Control Channel as shown on the City of Ithaca Zoning Map, or properties that directly abut the Department of Environmental Conservation twenty five foot permanent easement, no construction is permitted within the first 25’ along the Flood Control Channel, measured from the top of the existing bank. The first 15’ of the no build area are to be kept as clear space, but may have removable vertical elements, so that maintenance equipment can get to the water’s edge. or have removable vertical elements. Outdoor furnishings, such as plantings and benches, may be placed in the 10’ adjacent to the building area but must be kept to no more than 25’ in length with 50’ of clear spaces between to allow for access. In . ¶ Deleted: w Deleted: z Deleted: ( Deleted: ) Deleted: 1 8/12/2011 Page 7 of 7 the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments made herewith. Section 9. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter. Deleted: 8/9/2011 NYS R O U T E 3 4 & 1 3 S H O R T S T R E E T WEST FALLS STREET D E Y S T R E E T W I L L O W A V E N U E WEST L I N C O L N S T R E E T FI R S T S T R E E T MONRO E S T L A K E A V E N U E ESTY STREET NO R T H G E N E V A S T R E E T NO R T H A L B A N Y S T R E E T HANCO C K S T R E E T S E C O N D S T R E E T FRANK L I N S T R E E T ADAMS S T R E E T MADIS O N S T R E E T CASCADILLA STREET NO R T H P L A I N S T R E E T W I L L O W A V E N U E F O U R T H S T R E E T T H I R D S T R E E T MORRI S A V E N U E WA S H I N G T O N S T R E E T PA R K P L A C E WEST COURT STREET FI F T H S T R E E T ME A D O W S T R E E T NYS R O U T E 1 3 & 3 4 CAR P E N T E R C I R C L E THI R D S T R E E T E X T THIR D S T R E E T E X T E N S I O N SO U T H A L B A N Y S T R E E T West Martin Luther King Jr/State Street CENTER STREET FA Y E T T E S T R E E T WEST BUFFALO STREET WEST GREEN STREET WEST SENECA STREET SO U T H C O R N S T R E E T WEST CLINTON STREET SO U T H P L A I N S T R E E T NO R T H T I T U S A V E N U E SO U T H T I T U S A V E N U E NO R T H C O R N S T R E E T (S T A T E R T E 3 4 / 1 3 ) STATE RTE 79 (STATE ROUTE 96) CLEVELAND AVENUE S O U T H F U L T O N S T R E E T CECIL A MALONE DRIVE NO R T H F U L T O N S T R E E T WE S T S T A T E S T R E E T BR I N D L E Y S T R E E T TABE R S T R E E T CH E R R Y S T R E E T NY S R O U T E 1 3 A CH E S T N U T S T R E E T ELM S T R E E T TA U G H A N N O C K B L V D . PA R K R O A D H E C T O R S T R E E T C L I F F S T . HOPPER PLACE SUNRISE ROAD N Y S R O U T E 7 9 N Y S R O U T E 9 6 VIN E G A R H I L L WE S T F I E L D D R I V E C L I F F S T R E E T W E S T M O U N T D R I V E H E C T O R S T R E E T TAYLO R P L A C E TA Y L O R P L A C E C A M P B E L L A V E N U E 0 500 1,000 feet PROPOSED WATERFRONT RE-ZONING -AUGUST 2011 NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 Datum Map Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2009 Map Prepared by: GIS Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, 9 August 2011. Parcel Boundary Proposed P-1 Zone %%%%%%%%%% Proposed WF-2 Zone Legend Proposed WF-1 Zone E3 TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner DATE: August 9, 2011 RE: Proposed Designations of the John Snaith House and the Grand View House as Local Landmarks Attached please find materials related to the proposed designations of the John Snaith House (140 College Avenue) and the Grand View House (209 College Avenue) as local landmarks. Included in these materials are draft New York State Building Structure Inventory Forms, dated July 26, 2011, for both properties. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission reviewed previous versions of these documents (dated June 20, 2011) in its consideration of the designations, and the July 26, 2011 version includes corrections and clarifications presented by Mary Tomlan at the Commission’s June 28, 2011 special meeting. The corrections and clarifications do not change the basis for the Commission’s designation of either structure. The Commission will meet to review and approve these corrections and clarifications on August 16, 2011. The new version of the documents has been included in this mailing to provide time for review. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 Narrative Description of Property: John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue, Ithaca The John Snaith House is a two-story brick dwelling situated on a generously sized, downward sloping lot at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Cook Street. The house has a total of four habitable stories, the top story housed within a tall, steeply pitched slate-sheathed mansard roof with pedimented dormers, while the stone-walled basement story is above grade for approximately half of its perimeter. Modern alterations, which have retained the basic form and detailing of the body of the house, include the mid-1980s removal of a one-story sunroom and the addition of a structural fire escape on the south side and, more recently, the regrading of the front lawn to create a partially paved terrace level and the replacement of a classically styled porch at the northeast corner with an extensive shed-roofed canopy supported on wooden piers with decorative brackets. -------------------------------- The form of the Snaith House is a simple block on all but the front, where the façade steps outward from right to left (north to south) in approximate thirds, with the left-most projection being the smaller. The red brick walls of the house and its approximately thirty-foot setbacks from the public sidewalks on the east and north distinguish this from other, later dwellings on the west side of College Avenue, and combine with the considerable grade differential of the site from east to west to give the house a distinctive visibility. The front of the house is three bays wide, while each of the other façades has two openings on each of the three main stories, vertically aligned. Beyond this similarity, the fenestration patterns on the side and rear façades differ from each other. On the rear or west façade, the two windows on the top two stories and the doors below at the first story and basement level are arranged closer to the south end of the façade than to the north. On the north and south sides of the house, the windows are arranged symmetrically, but in quite different ways. While the windows on the north are widely spaced, those on the 1 south — and the first story doors below them — are closely spaced, and are flanked by engaged brick chimneys. The orange-red brick of the first and second story walls of the Snaith House is laid in common bond. Two courses project slightly from the wall plane at the level of the second story window sills, combining with the cut stone sills to form a modest stringcourse. The windows are set into the brick without decorative surrounds, and the replacement sash have 6/6 lights. The rectangular lintels are of cut stone, set flush with the walls, some of limestone and others of red sandstone; it is difficult to ascertain an intentional pattern in their selection and use. The exception to these lintels is at the second story window at the left (south) end of the front façade, where a shallow brick arch caps a triangular red sandstone lintel decorated with incised tendrils. The periphery of the site is marked by several types of metal fencing, the wrought iron fence along the College Avenue sidewalk being the most substantial and decorative. A gate and a short flight of steps lead from that sidewalk down to the level terrace that constitutes the front yard of the house, being largely paved but with a lawn at the northeast corner and various planting beds. That terrace extends nearly the full width of the site and back about half the depth of the building, separated from the basement level service and parking areas by a retaining wall on the north and the walls of a below-terrace garage on the south; a sidewalk and steps along the southern lot line lead down to that lower level. At the first-story level, the central entrance bay in the front façade has a decorative peak- headed arch of brick above a slightly inset transom light and double doors of wood, each with a glazed pane, while the bays at either side have wood doors, each with a single light, the door on the left being the newer of the two. A broad shed roof, its eaves having dentil trim and brackets, extends outward from just below the second story window sills in the two right bays of the façade, supported by square wooden posts with curved vertical brackets framing the bays on the front of this porch-like structure. On the south side, a steel fire escape extends from the first story or terrace level to serve the second 2 floor and that within the mansard roof; at each of those stories, the window that is closer to the front façade has been altered with the insertion of a fire door. At the rear (west side) of the house, a shallow, shed-roofed balcony extends across the southern portion of that façade at the first-story level, supported on triangular metal brackets and having slender metal supports and horizontal railings. The lower slope of the mansard roof is sheathed in shingles of grey slate. The roof is set off from the brick block below by projecting eaves with horizontally proportioned brackets accenting a dentil frieze. A projecting molding marks the intersection of the steep lower portion of the roof with the lesser-pitched upper slope. The windows in the mansard story are aligned with those on the stories below, have replacement sash with 6/6 lights and are capped by dentil frieze and triangular pediments, supported by similar brackets. An internal chimney rises above the roof near the northwest corner of the house, while the two engaged brick chimneys on the south side rise in front of the mansard, each having a pair of vertically proportioned insets at the mansard level. The walls of the basement story are a combination of dressed stone and rubble, the former employed for the upper portion of the north wall. While there is no documentation identifying which portions of the building remain from its 1874 construction and which date from the post-fire reconstruction in 1894-95, it seems likely that the masonry walls — brick and stone — are original while most of the other historic features date from the late nineteenth century. A number of changes were made during the mid-1980s when the house was renovated for use as a bed-and-breakfast facility. The most evident of these was the removal of a one- story sunroom on the south, the addition of the fire escape structure, and the installation of fire doors in place of two of the windows. At this time as well, the former wooden porch or balcony on the west façade was removed; evidence of that feature may be seen in the color and condition of the brick on the façade. 3 Following the acquisition of the house by the present owner in 2003, the site was modified with the construction of the existing terrace and canopy, the latter replacing a porch that likely dated to the 1894-95 reconstruction of the house. That porch, which did not project as far from the building as the present one, had a hipped roof, classical or colonial revival columns, and a low railing at all but the broad entrance. A first-story western balcony has also been installed, though with members of metal rather than wood. Window sash in the house that previously, if not originally, had 2/2 lights, have been replaced by ones with 6/6 lights. 4 Narrative Description of Significance: John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue, Ithaca The house at 140 College Avenue is significant not only as the sole nineteenth century brick dwelling along that street but also and especially for its association with John Snaith, who came to Ithaca from his native England to work on Ezra Cornell’s villa and whose career led him from work as a contractor, sometime designer, and real estate entrepreneur in Ithaca to major contracting jobs in Scranton, Albany, and New York City. Originally built by Snaith in 1874 as his family’s home, the house was rebuilt under his direction following a damaging fire in 1894. Throughout its history, the East Hill location of the house and its occupancy have been closely related to the presence and growth of Cornell University. -------------------------------- John Snaith, a carpenter from Newcastle-on-Tyne, was one of fourteen artisans enlisted by Cornell University professor and fellow Englishman Goldwin Smith to come to Ithaca in 1869. Comprising five masons, six carpenters, two bricklayers, and one plasterer, the focus of their work was to be Ezra Cornell’s new villa, but their skills would be called upon for buildings on the university grounds, as well.(1) It was in 1873 that Snaith and his wife Mary Ann began to acquire property on East Hill a short distance south of the recently opened university, their first two purchases located west of Huestis Street (now College Avenue).(2) While the family initially lived downtown, in the summer of 1874 Snaith erected a substantial and attractive brick dwelling at No. 40 Huestis (No. 140 since 1899), providing a tour of the completed building to a representative of the Ithaca Daily Journal that October. As described in the resulting Journal article, the new residence — for which “Mr. Snaith was his own architect” — was two stories high, with “a large and commodious basement” that was above ground on three sides and an attic that contained a cistern from which water was supplied to the entire house. The first story included a conservatory on the south, a large 5 balcony on the west that commanded “a fine view of the village,” and Snaith’s private office and study. In the 1882 birdseye view of Ithaca, the Snaith residence was depicted as having a rather tall hipped or mansard roof with a single dormer on the west, paired chimneys on the south, and a porch along the west façade.(3) After Snaith purchased property further down the hill from his house in 1875 and likely constructed the brick dwelling thereon,(4) the couple turned their attention to residential development to the east of their home, acquiring several parcels on the east side of Huestis Street, two of which also had frontage on Hazen Street (now Linden Avenue). Beginning in late 1876, Snaith advertised the sale of houses and lots on East Hill in evident anticipation of university-stimulated demand in this area a short distance east of the village.(5) Meanwhile, Snaith was busy on other fronts, one of them being the provision of architectural designs. Though he had identified himself as a carpenter in the federal census of 1870 and as a carpenter and joiner in the state census five years later, Snaith was reported to have designed his home on Huestis Street and to have planned, as well as built, a large frame house on South Albany Street for Roger B. Williams in 1875.(6) Snaith gave his occupation as “Architect” in the federal census of 1880 and was listed among Ithaca’s architects in the village directories of 1880 and 1884-85.(7) He was one of four Ithacans who submitted plans for a new Fall Creek School in 1878, and he designed and built a home for Prof. Isaac P. Roberts on the Cornell campus, a frame house for William V. Teeter and Pliny Hall on South Albany Street, and various storefront and interior improvements to several downtown business blocks.(8) Even as Snaith advertised during most of 1879 that “plans, specifications and estimates” would be “carefully prepared,” he presented himself primarily as a “Builder and Contractor.” His work from the 1870s well illustrated these advertisements, which stated that he was a “dealer in all kinds of Cut Stone and Roofing Slate” and that his capabilities included the construction of “Stone, Brick or Frame Buildings.”(9) Among his Ithaca jobs were contracts of 1874 and 1877, respectively, to construct the Samuel H. Winton 6 house and the prominent Henry W. Sage mansion, both designed by Ithaca architect William H. Miller. In 1878, he was reported to be furnishing cut stone for a church in Owego and a town hall in Canton, while in the following year Snaith erected a carpentry shop on South Aurora Street to accommodate that aspect of his contracts.(10) The scale and geographic scope of Snaith’s contracting work expanded significantly in the 1880s, apparently beginning with his construction of the Lackawanna County Courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1881-84. This contract in particular offered job opportunities for other Ithacans; in September 1882, for example, Snaith advertised in the Ithaca Daily Journal for 100 masons, half of these to be stonecutters and half, bricklayers, while in December of the same year he advertised for 50 carpenters.(11) Snaith spent considerable time in Scranton, completing the courthouse job and taking on others there throughout the decade. His wife and children occasionally accompanied him to Pennsylvania and, in turn, Snaith hosted Scranton clients and business associates at the family’s Huestis Street home.(12) His most visible job in Ithaca during this period was the construction of the new High School in 1884-85, designed by local architect A. B. Wood.(13) Even as Snaith’s work continued in Pennsylvania, he gained new opportunities in New York State. In the capital city of Albany, Snaith found ample and significant connections to his previous work in both Scranton and Ithaca.(14) The architect of the Lackawanna County Courthouse, Isaac G. Perry of Binghamton, was appointed Commissioner of the New Capitol in the spring of 1883 and, not long thereafter, Snaith’s former clerk of the works for the Scranton courthouse job, Charles Beckwith, was reported to be employed in work at the Capitol in Albany as well.(15) Louis J. Hinton, another of the English artisans who had worked in Ithaca during the 1870s, would apply his stone-carving skills to Albany buildings during the 1880s.(16) Snaith’s first Albany contract seems to have been for the initial phase of construction of the Cathedral of All Saints, Episcopal, and this job was followed by that for the Albany Y.M.C.A. and by replacement and repair work at the New York State Capitol.(17) 7 It was Snaith’s work on the New York State Capitol — the installation of a replacement ceiling for the Assembly Chamber, in particular — that brought him to the attention of the broader public. Following failings in the vaulted stone structure that spanned that magnificent space, the legislature determined in spring 1888 to erect a generally flat ceiling of lesser weight, and the contract was awarded to John Snaith. When the results of the repairs and replacement were unveiled, they proved to be other than what had been expected, with ceiling panels of papier maché rather than quartered oak. As detailed in Capitol Story (1964) by Albany journalist Cecil R. Roseberry, Snaith’s fulfillment of his contract for the job was questioned in several committees and courts. With the potential for blame to be spread among professionals, bureaucrats, and politicians alike, Snaith may have remained relatively unscathed by the widely reported affair, though local press accounts suggest he increasingly relied on jobs in New York City and elsewhere rather than in Albany.(18) The extent of his work in New York’s capital city had led Snaith, his wife, and three daughters to move to Albany in Spring 1887, renting out their Ithaca home while continuing to hold most of their other properties nearby, all well-located given the increase in Cornell enrollment during that decade. While the initial tenants of the Snaiths’ former residence have not been identified, by fall of the following year it was rented to, apparently, a mother and two sons who were, or would become, university students.(19) At about the same time, Snaith arranged for the construction of a large frame boarding house on his lot at No. 15 Huestis Street (later 115 College Avenue), to be occupied and operated by Mrs. Snaith’s sister, Miss Isabella Winship, who had lived with the family in Ithaca until its departure for Albany.(20) The Snaiths’ brick house at No. 40 Huestis Street was home to landlady Mrs. J. H. Copeland and student tenants in February 1894 when it suffered a serious fire, being variously reported as “about destroyed,” “gutted” or having the interior “well burned out.”(21) With about $4,000 of insurance on the house, Snaith made “amicable adjustment of his loss with the fire insurance adjusters,” and proceeded to rebuild. Given his continued connections with family and friends in Ithaca, and involvement in this and 8 other East Hill properties, Snaith seems likely to have been responsible for decisions pertaining to this project. His prior commitments to construction work in Albany and New York City, however, led Snaith to engage local contractor Fred P. Randolph for the rebuilding, with “the new house . . . to be three stories and completed for occupancy on May first.”(22) It is not known whether the Snaiths’ Huestis Street house was ready for tenants by the intended date or not. Advertisements in the Cornell Daily Sun almost a year later, in late April 1895, announced its availability as a “Fraternity House to Let” and described it as “the new brick house.” Similar advertisements ran in the local papers during the following fall, indicating that the house had “all modern improvements” and was available for either moderate rent or “very low rent to [the] right party.”(23) With few specifics available regarding the rebuilt dwelling, any discussion about its form must rely on an assessment of the existing fabric and twentieth century documentation. Though the house of 1894-95 was repeatedly characterized as a new house, and though knowledge of the 1874 dwelling and subsequent fire damage are limited, it seems reasonable to assume that the masonry portions of the original structure remained basically intact throughout. Indeed, the tall stone basement and brick walls, along with the paired brick chimneys and western balcony or porch, appears to be consistent with those aspects of Snaith’s 1874 residence, while the decorative treatment of the dormers recalls his early endeavors as a carpenter, and the inset panels in the paired chimneys reflect the interests of a mason and call to mind the decorative chimney of his Hall-Teeter house on South Albany Street. Perhaps the most notable change was in the increased steepness of the mansard roof and the greater number of dormers, both characteristics consistent with the intended use of the house as a rental residential property. The generous front porch, since removed, with its classical or colonial revival columns and low railing, may also date from the post-fire rebuilding.(24) Though continuing to press forward with his contracting work, primarily in New York City, Snaith apparently developed health problems, and he died in Yonkers on October 9 6,1896. The family returned to Ithaca with his body for its burial at Lake View Cemetery; the funeral service at St. John’s Episcopal Church was reportedly attended by a “large number of his former friends,” including English stone carver Louis Hinton. Thereafter, Mary Ann Snaith and the couple’s three adult daughters took up residence in the brick house on Quarry Street before moving to Syracuse about 1900. The family made their home there, with Mary Ann disposing of her remaining Ithaca properties in the years prior to her death in 1914.(25) At the time of John Snaith’s death, the brick house at No. 40 Huestis Street was apparently occupied by members of the Jewell family, of whom Albert had previously been the proprietor of the East Hill House, one of the large boarding houses closer to the university campus.(26) By 1898, the house was occupied by the family of William Cessna, whose wife leased the house from Mary Ann Snaith before purchasing it in June 1904 for $4,000. Under Julia B. Cessna, the house was operated as a rooming house, and following her death in 1916 was advertised for sale, the asking price being $6,000. After giving the building’s location, the extensive text of the Ithaca Journal advertisement went on to characterize the history, features and potential of the house. The house was built by a prominent English builder for his own home. He also built the Cornell mansion, and the old Ithaca High School. The property we offer for sale has solid brick walls and partitions, a slate French mansard roof, oak finish throughout, steam heat, and extra large lot, 92x94. Lots of fruit, cherries, plums, grapes, peaches and strawberries; 2 fireplaces on first floor and one in dining room. House has 14 rooms, bath room and electric lights; some student furniture goes with the property. This makes a fine proposition for a large family or for a rooming house. It has been a money-maker for the past several years. $3,000 cash down will purchase it, and $3,000 may remain on the mortgage.(27) The qualities of the house were apparently desirable, considering the short time between the death of Julia B. Cessna on January 5, the advertisement of the house on February 11 and the sale of the property on February 23. The new owners kept the property for about five years, as did their successors. Thereafter, beginning in 1926, the next two owner- occupants held the property for almost twenty and approximately forty years, respectively. Throughout these twentieth century decades, the house apparently served both as a family home and as a rooming house for students, staff, or faculty.(28) 10 The purchase of the house by Nancy Falconer in 1985 initiated a period of somewhat different use, that of a bed-and-breakfast facility, Peregrine House. Alterations were made to enable and serve this use, the most evident on the exterior being the addition of a fire escape structure on the south side of the house, accessed from the two upper stories through fire doors installed in the respective window openings. The house continued to serve this function until 2002, when the property was put up for sale, the asking price in a December 18 advertisement stated as $549,000. The brief description provided a sense of change as well as continuity when compared with that of 1916. Former Bed & Breakfast. 1870’s brick Victorian 3 blocks from Cornell. Double parlors with ornate fireplaces, fancy wood ceilings, elaborate stair hall, 8 rooms, 5 full baths, 4 half baths. Beautiful grounds with wrought iron fencing. Parking for 8 cars.(29) The sale of the building in spring 2003 was to Collegetown property owner Po Family Limited Partnership, under whose holding there have been modifications of the site (leveling and extensive paving), removal of the former front porch, and addition of a large shed-roofed canopy supported on wooden posts.(30) Endnotes: Note: The citations provided below are abbreviated; full bibliographic information follows. (1) For Snaith’s birthplace — and a biographical summary — see IDJ , Oct. 6, 1896. The party of 24 men, women and children who arrived in July 1869 included stone cutters Robert Richardson, William Colquhoun and Noah Kirk, and carpenter Henry Bool, who would become a furniture manufacturer and merchant; all four, like Snaith, would take up residence in the area to the south of the new university; IJ, July 13, 1869; ID, July 15, 1869; Parsons, The Cornell Campus (1968), pp. 8-9. For Bool, see Kurtz, Ithaca and Its Resources (1883), pp. 72-75. Sage Chapel contracts, for example, were awarded in 1873 to Snaith for carpentry and masonry work, and to Richardson for stone carving; IDJ, Apr. 23, 1873. (2) For the initial purchases of Dec. 2, 1873 and Mar. 7, 1874, see Tompkins County, Deed Records, Book 8, pp. 530, 572. These parcels, as with most of the subsequently purchased Snaith property, were deeded to Mary Ann Snaith. (3) Snaith was initially listed as residing on North Tioga Street and then on North Albany Street; Lennon, Ithaca and Tompkins County Business Directory (1872), p. 103; Fitzgerald, Ithaca Directory and Tompkins County Business Directory, for 1873-4, p. 103. For Snaith’s Huestis Street house, see IDJ, Oct. 30, 1874. For the bird’s-eye view, 11 see Burleigh, “Ithaca, N.Y. 1882.” At the time that the house was constructed, the Snaith household consisted of the couple, a son and a daughter, and Mrs. Snaith’s unmarried sister, Isabella Winship, all born in England. Another son, born in the United States, had died in 1871. The Snaith’s remaining son would die in 1876, but they would have two additional daughters; Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, Tompkins County, p. 212 (Town of Ithaca, pp. 51-52); New York State Census, 1875, Tompkins County, Town of Ithaca, p. 146; Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Tompkins County, p. 161 (Town of Ithaca, p. 1); IJ, Mar. 7, 1871; IDJ, Aug. 18, 1876. (4) John Snaith purchased the property at what is now 123 Quarry Street (originally No. 23) for $900; Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 9, p. 249. (5) For the Snaith purchases, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 9, pp. 365, 368; Book 10, pp. 34, 205; Book 12, pp. 261-62. For his advertisements, see, e.g., IDJ, Dec. 8, 1876; Feb. 2, Apr. 13, 1877. It is difficult to directly correlate all Snaith purchases and sales to advertisements and news items concerning houses for rent and sale. It seems possible that, in some instances, he was advertising the sale of houses that he had erected for other property owners. For three of his properties in this area between Huestis and Hazen Streets, see Beers, “Map of City of Ithaca” (1889). (6) Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, Tompkins County, p. 212 (Town of Ithaca, pp. 51-52); New York State Census, 1875, Tompkins County, Town of Ithaca, p. 146. For the Snaith and Williams houses, see IDJ, Oct. 30, 1874; May 14, June 10, Oct. 7, 1875. (7) Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Tompkins County, p. 161 (Town of Ithaca, p. 1). For the 1880 directory, see Williams, Ithaca General and Business Directory (1880), p. 138; Snaith also advertised and listed himself as a builder and contractor and, in the business directory, was listed under “Carpenters, Contractors and Builders,” though his full-page advertisement also stated that he offered “Plans and Specifications, Carefully and Accurately Prepared;” pp. XXII, 114, 142. For the 1884-85 directory, see Mente, Ithaca General and Business Directory for 1884-85, p. 155; Snaith was also listed as a builder and contractor; pp. 131, 157. (8) For the Fall Creek School, see IDJ, Oct. 24, Dec. 9, 1878. Plans by architect A. B. Wood were selected, with the selection process questioned by Snaith. For the I. P. Roberts house, see IDJ, June 18, Aug. 21, 1880. For the Hall-Teeter house, see John Snaith Papers, Archives #2297, Cornell University; IDJ, Mar. 7, 1881. Archived materials include photocopies of Snaith’s correspondence with the owners of the house, specifications for the house and carriage barn, and drawings for the barn. For the downtown blocks, see IDJ, May 4, 1875; July 28, 1879; Feb. 28, 1880. (9) IDJ, July 8, 1879, advertisement. (10) See advertisement, IDJ, July 8, 1879. For the Winton house, see IDJ, Aug. 12, 1874; July 23, 1875. For the Henry W. Sage mansion, see IDJ, July 17, 21, 1877; Mar. 7, 12 1879. The first of these Sage references stated that Snaith had been responsible for constructing Cornell University president Andrew D. White’s house, but this has not been confirmed. For the Owego and Canton jobs, see, respectively, IDJ, Apr. 6, July 8, 1878. For his carpentry shop, see IDJ, Apr. 10, May 13, 29, 1879. (11) For the courthouse job, see IDJ, Oct. 28, 1880; Mar.21, Apr. 16, 1881; Mar. 26, 1884; Hitchcock, History of Scranton and Its People, (1914), vol. I, p. 368; Freeman, Lackawanna County: An Illustrated History (2000), pp. 64, 65. For Snaith’s advertisements for construction workers, see IDJ, Sept. 13, Dec. 11, 1882. (12) For other examples of Snaith’s Scranton work, see IDJ, Aug. 15, 1882; May 5, 1884; June 21, 1886. Some of Snaith’s 1881-82 correspondence with owners of the Hall- Teeter house was on stationery that gave his Scranton postal lock box number, as he explained why his work on the courthouse there kept him from their project here; he made reference to one of his workmen in Ithaca and, for payments, to his wife; John Snaith Papers, Archives #2297, Cornell University. For family members’ visits, see, e.g., IDJ, June 10, Oct. 1, 1885. For his Scranton guests, see, e.g., IDJ, June 24, July 26, 1884. (13) For the Ithaca High School job, see IDJ, May 31, 1884; July 21, 1885. (14) A full and accurate understanding of the personal and professional relationships noted here would require further research and explication; existing materials are sufficient to suggest their significance. (15) For Perry, see Haynes, “Isaac G. Perry: Craftsman-Architect,” in Proceedings of the New York State Capitol Symposium (1983), pp. 87-95. For Beckwith, see IDJ, May 16, 1881; Feb. 20, June 25, 1883. (16) For Hinton’s work in Albany, see Waite, Albany Architecture (1993), pp. 59-60, 70, 83; Roseberry, Capitol Story (1964), pp. 98-99, 111; IDJ, Nov. 9, 1886. (17) For the Cathedral of All Saints, see Waite, Albany Architecture (1993), p. 83; IDJ, Jan. 8, Mar. 25, 1885; Apr. 22, 1887. For the Y.M.C.A., see IDJ, June 14, Nov. 9, 1886. For Snaith’s contracts for the National Commercial Bank and St. Agnes School, see IDJ, Apr. 22, Oct. 11, 1887, respectively. (18) Roseberry, Capitol Story (1964), pp. 83-89. Snaith was reported to have opened an office in New York City in 1889; IDJ, Jan. 19, 1889. He was listed as a contractor at 30 Union Square with his home in Albany in Trow’s New York City Directory for the Year Ending May 1, 1890, p. 1876. (19) For the Snaith move, see IDJ, Apr. 25, May 2, 1887. For his recent construction of houses, see IDJ, Nov. 1, 1886; Jan. 17, June 23, 1887. Cornell University’s fall enrollment rose from 649 in 1885 to 1,229 in 1888; Registrar, “Cornell University Annual Fall Enrollment Records 1868 to Present,” Archives #36/1/876, Cornell 13 University. For a rental advertisement and the subsequent occupancy of the former Snaith home, see IDJ, Mar. 31, 1888; Hanford, Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1888- 89, pp. 163-64. Such occupancy, by a family with college- and/or high school-age offspring, was a familiar one in Ithaca during the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially on upper East Hill, the households often headed by widows or by men identified as farmers, persons who likely came into town to enable the better education of their children. (20) IDJ, July 14, Aug. 30, Sept. 15, 1888. Winship is listed at this address in the Ithaca city directories of 1890-91 through 1899-1900, and in the 1900 census; see, e.g., Hanford, Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1890-91, p. 252; Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, Tompkins County (City of Ithaca).. (21) For the reports of the fire, see, respectively, IDJ, Feb. 19, 1894; CDS, Feb. 19, 1894; ID, Feb. 22, 1894. See also CE, Feb. 24, 1894. (22) IDJ, Mar. 13, 1894. Randolph had constructed Snaith’s Huestis Street house for the use of Miss Winship. (23) CDS, Apr. 25, Sept. 28, 1895; IDJ, Sept. 28, 1895. (24) While the steepness and height of the lower slope of the Snaith house roof may have been employed for their functional benefits, the simpler character of this interpretation of the mansard is consistent with other design trends seen in buildings of the 1890s. The porch is shown in the Sanborn fire insurance maps of 1910 and following; Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, April 1910, sheet 14. The Sanborn map of 1904, the first to include this area of the City, shows the house without the front or rear porches on the 1910 map. While it is possible that the differences signify changes made between 1904 and 1910, it should be noted that the former Snaith home and other dwellings located near the bottom edge of the sheet all seem to be drawn with less attention to detail; Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins Co., New York, Feby 1904, sheet 13. (25) For some of Snaith’s work in New York City, see IDJ, May 4, 1891; Nov. 11, 1895. For his death and funeral, see New-York Daily Tribune, Oct. 7, 1896; IDJ, Oct. 6, 8, 1896. Attendees also included local merchant Frank J. Enz, a member of the New York State Assembly at the time Snaith had the contract for the replacement ceiling in the Assembly Chambers; IDJ, June 20, July 21, 1888; Jan. 12, 1889. For Mary Ann and her daughters, see Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1898-99, p. 279; Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1899, p.262. A deed record of May 1900 gives her place of residence as Syracuse, and she died there in 1914; Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 155, pp. 32-33; IJ, Aug. 17, 1914. (26) For the Jewell family, see Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1894-95, p. 169; Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1896-97, p. 183. 14 (27) For the lease and purchase, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 155, pp. 32- 33; Book 161, p. 246. The Cessnas were listed as residents of the house in the Ithaca city directories of 1898-99 and 1901 through 1915-16; see, e.g., Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1898-99, pp. 96, 344. For Mrs. Cessna’s death and the subsequent advertisement of the house for sale, see IJ, Jan. 6, Feb. 11, 1916. (28) Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 186, p. 43 (Cessna to Rose, 1916); Book 201, p. 335 (Rose to Taylor, 1921); Book 212, p. 105 (Taylor to Britton, 1926); Book 278, pp. 251-53 (Britton to Reilly, 1945); Book 611, pp. 233-35 (Reilly to Falconer, 1985). For occupants, see the street address listings in various Ithaca city directories of the period. (29) The property, upon Falconer’s purchase, was apparently immediately transferred to Nancy E. Falconer and Jason Fane, d.b.a. Falconer Inns; Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 611, pp. 231-32. Survey maps dated July 23, 1985 and September 9, 1986 record the existence and removal of the sunroom and the erection of the fire escape on the south side, and the removal of the western porch and a garage at the rear of the lot. For the survey maps, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 611, p. 234; Author’s collection, from Nancy Falconer. For a photograph showing the sunroom, see Tompkins County Assessment Records, 1954, Document for No. 267-1, Historic Ithaca. (30) Tompkins County Deed Records, Instrument No. 430635-002. Sources Cited: Note: The bibliographic citations that follow pertain only to the sources identified in the Endnotes. The sources that were consulted for this nomination are considerably more numerous, and include Tompkins County and Ithaca village and city directories from 1868 forward, Albany and New York City directories for the years in which Snaith worked in those cities, various Cornell University student and alumni directories, numerous issues of the Ithaca and New York City newspapers, the General Photo File at The History Center in Tompkins County, miscellaneous photographs (1976, 1980, 1981) provided by Ithaca resident Kathryn Yoselson, and various materials provided by former owner Nancy Falconer. Books and Serials: • Fitzgerald, J. Burke, comp. Ithaca Directory and Tompkins County Business Directory, for 1873-4. Ithaca, N.Y.: J. Burke Fitzgerald, 1873. • Freeman, Aileen Sallom. Lackawanna County: An Illustrated History. [Scranton]: Community Communications, 2000. • Hanford, Geo., comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1894-95. [Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, 1894]. • Hanford, Geo., comp. Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1888-89. Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton, [1888]. • Hanford, Geo., comp. Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1890-91. Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton, [1890]. 15 • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1896-97. [Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, 1896]. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1898-99. [Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, 1898] • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1899. [Ithaca, N.Y.]: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, 1899. • Haynes, Wesley, “Isaac G. Perry: Craftsman-Architect,” in Proceedings of the New York State Capitol Symposium. Albany: Temporary State Commission on the Restoration of the Capitol, 1983), 86-95. • Hitchcock, Frederick L. History of Scranton and Its People. 2 vol. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1914. • Kurtz, D. Morris. Ithaca and Its Resources. Ithaca, N.Y.: Journal Association Book and Job Print., 1883. • Lennon, J. Francis, comp. Ithaca and Tompkins County Business Directory. Ithaca, N.Y.: J. Francis Lennon, 1872. • Mente, Henry, comp. Ithaca General and Business Directory for 1884-85. Ithaca, N.Y.: Norton & Conklin, [1884]. • Parsons, Kermit Carlyle. The Cornell Campus: A History of Its Planning and Development. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968. • Roseberry, Cecil R. Capitol Story. Albany: State of New York, 1964. • Trow’s New York City Directory for the Year Ending May 1, 1890. New York: Trow City Directory Company, 1889. • Waite, Diana S., ed. Albany Architecture: A Guide to the City. Albany: Mount Ida Press, in association with the Preservation League of New York State, 1993. • Williams, B. R., comp. Ithaca General and Business Directory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Norton & Conklin, 1880. Published Views, Maps, and Atlases: • Beers, F. W. “Map of City of Ithaca[,] N.Y.” New York: F. W. Beers & Co., 1889. • Burleigh, L. R., del. “Ithaca, N.Y. 1882.” [Troy, N.Y.]: L. R. Burleigh, 1882. • Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins Co., New York, Feb. 1904. New York: Sanborn Map Co., 1904. • Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, April 1910. New York: Sanborn Map Co., 1910. Newspapers: • Cornell Daily Sun (CDS) • Cornell Era (CE) • Ithaca Daily Journal (IDJ) • Ithaca Democrat (ID) • Ithaca Journal (IJ) • New-York Daily Tribune 16 Public Records: • New York State Census, 1875, Tompkins County, Tompkins County Clerk’s Office • Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, Tompkins County, New York (microfilm) • Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Tompkins County, New York (microfilm) • Tompkins County, New York, Deed Records, Tompkins County Clerk’s Office • Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900, Tompkins County, New York (microfilm) Miscellaneous Unpublished Sources: • General Photo File (GPF), The History Center in Tompkins County • Miscellaneous documents, author’s collection, provided by Nancy Falconer • Registrar, Office of the, “Cornell University Annual Fall Enrollment Records 1868 to Present,” Archives #36/1/876, Box 1, Folder 1-9, Cornell University Library • Snaith, John, Papers, 1881-1882, Archives #2297, Cornell University Library • Tompkins County Assessment Records, 1954, Historic Ithaca 17 Planning and Development Board Adopted Resolution July 26, 2011 RE: Local Landmark Designation of the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue WHEREAS: on June 28, 2011, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to designate the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue, a local landmark, and WHEREAS: Section 228-4 of the City Municipal Code stipulates that the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with the Common Council with respect to the relation of such designation with the Master Plan, the zoning laws, projected pubic improvements, and any plans for renewal of the site or area involved, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board files the attached report with the Common Council with respect to the issues stipulated in the City Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board supports the local landmark designation of the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPORT CONCERNING THE ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF THE JOHN SNAITH HOUSE AS A LANDMARK —to be considered at July 26,2011 meeting of City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board — At a special meeting held on June 28,2011,the Ithaca L andmarks Preservation Commission unanimous- ly voted to designate the John Snaith House at 140 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca local landmark.A map showing the location of the property and a summar y of its historic and architectural significance are attached to this report.Per Section 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code,“Within sixty (60)days of designation by the Commission,the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with the [Common]Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the Master Plan,the zoning laws,projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.”The designation would only take effect if,within ninety days of the ILPC designation,Common Council voted to approve the designation. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO THE MASTER PLAN:The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan &Conceptual Design Guidelines,”endorsed by Common Council in August,2009,recommends that zoning in the area of this property be amended to allow greater density in the Collegetown core.However,this plan also rec- ognizes the existence of several historically significant resources within the Collegetown Planning Area that merit designation as local historic landmarks,and it contains the following recommendation: 5.M.Historically significant resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation as local historic landmarks, but which currently have no such protection,should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and designated by Common Council.Ideally,this process would take place concurrently with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-based Collegetown zoning amendments. While the East Hill Historic District and the 1896 Eddy Gate monument already have his- toric designation,other historically significant resources within the Collegetown Planning Area remain undesignated and unprotected.Cascadilla Hall,Sheldon Court and Grand View House (the exceptional tall wooden residential building with central tower and mansard roof at 209 College Avenue),for example,would probably be near the top of any more complete list of currently unprotected Collegetown historic resources.(See Figure 11 for drawings of these three buildings.) With the exception of a specific reference to the “handsome and historic character”of Sheldon Court on Page 7.3,there are only very general references to currently undesignated historic resources in the 2008 Goody Clancy Plan &Guidelines.For example,the section on “Character Area 2:Village Residential,”calls for identifying “architecturally significant detached homes to be considered for preservation in this area.”(Page 6.15)Likewise,the stated goal of “Character Area 4:Preservation B”is to “maintain the historic character of traditional neighborhoods through protection of existing buildings and design controls on the architecture and massing of any future renovations or new construction.”(Page 6.23) But the May 31,2007 Collegetown Vision Statement had recommended (on App.14)that “Identification,rehabilitation,and interpretation of historic,architectural,and natural resources should be included in the scope of the urban plan,”and the June 10,2008 Planning Board comments on the then-draft plan also called for the final plan to contain a list “indicating which Collegetown buildings and structures merit permanent preservation because of their historic significance.” Since it has not yet been accomplished,the work of identifying and designating the specific Collegetown historic resources that merit,but do not yet have,permanent protection remains to be done,and should be done expeditiously,to provide all the community benefits stated in §228-2 of the “Landmarks Preservation”chapter of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.[...] Furthermore,the John Snaith House is included in the “Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research:Icons of Collegetown,Individual Buildings,Architectural Ensembles &L andscape Features”report,prepared by former Alderperson Mar y Tomlan and Planning Board Chair John Schroeder on June 14,2009.Fifteen of the properties in the latter report,including the Snaith House, were identified in the application authorized by the City of Ithaca Common Council on September 1, 2010 for a 2011 New York State Certified Local Government Sub-Grant to fund survey and documenta- tion,pursuant to local historic designation and potential nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. There is nothing in “Ithaca,N.Y.:A General Plan”(1971)as amended that conflicts with the proposed designation of the Snaith House as a local landmark. In summar y,designation of the John Snaith House as a local landmark is consistent with the goals and recommendations of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan &Conceptual Design Guidelines,”and would represent one step toward fulfilling this plan’s recommendations. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO THE ZONING LAWS:The zoning classification of the property proposed for local landmark designation is R-3b.Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.Ithaca L andmarks Preservation Commission review is limited to the visual compati- bility of proposed exterior alterations,additions or demolition. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO PLANNED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:There are no public improvements planned on the property that would conflict with the proposed designation of the Snaith House as a local landmark. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO PLANS FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE SITE OR AREA INVOLVED:On April 26, 2011,the Planning and Development Board granted Preliminar y and Final Site Plan Approval for a three- stor y,twelve-bedroom addition to the south side of the Snaith House;this addition has been carefully and thoughtfully designed to be compatible with the original historic building and to be in accordance with generally-accepted historic preservation principles.There are no plans in the City’s Community Development Block Grant program or by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area.Local landmark designation would require that any future private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site undergo review and approval by the Ithaca L andmarks Preservation Commission before work commences. —2 — Planning and Development Board Adopted Resolution July 26, 2011 RE: Local Landmark Designation of the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue WHEREAS: on June 28, 2011, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to designate the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue, a local landmark, and WHEREAS: Section 228-4 of the City Municipal Code stipulates that the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with the Common Council with respect to the relation of such designation with the Master Plan, the zoning laws, projected pubic improvements, and any plans for renewal of the site or area involved, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board files the attached report with the Common Council with respect to the issues stipulated in the City Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board supports the local landmark designation of the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue. ILPC Meeting – 6/28/11 Resolution – RA RE: Local Landmark Designation of the John Snaith House, 140 College Ave. RESOLUTION: Moved by Susan Jones, seconded by N. Brcak. WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, a special public hearing held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the John Snaith House at 140 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca landmark, has been concluded, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, dated June 20, 2011, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative Description of Significance, prepared by Mary Tomlan for consideration by the ILPC, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, consideration of the John Snaith House as an historic resource was introduced in a report prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009, entitled Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles, and Landscape Features, and WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines a landmark as follows: A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present. B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles. C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting Held: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, John Snaith House 2 the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own the documentation and information more fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, dated June 20, 2011, and additional information presented by Mary Tomlan on June 28, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed designation. As described in the Narrative Description of Significance section of the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, prepared by Mary Tomlan and dated June 20, 2011, the John Snaith House, and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #68.-6-2, is a structure deemed worth of preservation by reason of its value to the city as a structure which has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest, and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, as enumerated below: 1) The John Snaith House has special historical and aesthetic interest and value as a part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca and as an example of the work of the owner, designer and builder and businessman, John Snaith. As stated in the Narrative Statement of Significance portion of the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, John Snaith and his wife, Mary Ann, like many in the area, participated in the speculative acquisition of properties on East Hill, near Cornell University. In Snaith’s case, these included properties west of Huestis Street, now College Avenue, and later east of that street. In 1874, Snaith constructed and likely designed a residence located at what was then 40 Huestis Street. The Narrative Statement of Significance recounts an interview published in the Ithaca Daily Journal in October 1874, describing the residence as having a “fine view of the village” from the westward vantage. The deep setback from the street and the generously sized lot set the house apart from other houses on the street. The Snaith House is the only surviving residence on College Avenue constructed of brick. The house John Snaith originally designed and built for his family in 1874, as suggested by the surviving features listed above, is a representative example of a residence that reflected the confidence of a proficient builder and developer. 2) The John Snaith House has special historical and aesthetic interest and value as a part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca through association with John Snaith, who as stated in the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, came to Ithaca from his native England to work on Ezra Cornell’s Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting Held: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, John Snaith House 3 villa. His career led him from work as a contractor, sometime designer, and real estate entrepreneur in Ithaca to major contracting jobs in Scranton, Albany, and New York City. As stated in the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, John Snaith was born in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and enlisted to work on the construction of Ezra Cornell’s new villa by Cornell University professor and fellow Englishman, Goldwin Smith. While at Cornell, he worked on other building projects associated with the early campus development. Having worked as a stonecutter at Cornell in the early years of the University’s development, John Snaith is representative of the many skilled construction workers recruited from England and Europe who contributed to the establishment and growth of Cornell University. Over the course of John Snaith’s life, he simultaneously identified himself as a stone cutter, carpenter/joiner, architect/designer, and builder/contractor. As described in the Narrative Description of Significance, the scope and geographical area of his commissions expanded significantly. Among numerous residential commissions noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, his most visible work in Ithaca was the construction of the Ithaca High School, 1884-85, designed by A.B. Wood. In the 1880, Snaith was awarded the commission for construction of the Lackawanna County Courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Contacts in Scranton led to commissions in Albany, New York, and in, the latter part of his career, eventually, replacement and repair work at the New York State Capitol. 3) Conversion of the John Snaith House during Snaith’s time from a family residence to owner-occupied, rooming, or boarding house accommodations, later to a bed and breakfast, and ultimately to student apartments imparts a special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca. In 1894, the Snaith House suffered a damaging fire. Although there are no details about what portions of the building were impaired or destroyed, the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New York State Building- Structure Inventory Form notes that one could assume that the stone foundation and brick walls survived the fire. By the time of the fire, the Snaith family was living in Albany and the residence had been rented to a landlady and student tenants. Upon deciding to rebuild, Snaith introduced some changes to the original design, most notably a steep mansard roof and a greater number of dormer windows. These features were an indication of Snaith’s likely intention to increase the rental income by adding habitable space to this well-situated property. The operation of his former home as a rooming house continued after Snaith’s death in 1896, with the owner- occupants of 1926 holding the property for almost 20 years and their successors, for a period of approximately 40 years. During this period, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Meeting Held: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, John Snaith House 4 house served as a family home and rooming house. In 1985, the house was purchased and altered for use as a bed and breakfast. In 2003, the house was sold to another local entity who resumed the use of the property as student rental housing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that, based on the findings set forth above, the John Snaith House meets criterion “C.,” defining a “Local Landmark,” as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, “Landmarks Preservation,” and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby designates the John Snaith House, 140 College Avenue, as a City of Ithaca landmark. RECORD OF VOTE: 6-0-0 Ye s M. Mc Ga ndy D. Kra mer S. Stei n S. Jon es E. Fin ega n N. Brc ak No 0 Ab stai n 0 _ Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee August 17, 2011 John Snaith House, 140 College Ave. – Local Landmark Designation WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the ILPC conducted a special public hearing for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the John Snaith House, 140 College Ave., as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and on June 28, 2011, voted to designate the John Snaith House as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on July 26, 2011, has been reviewed by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within ninety days of said designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to the ILPC for modification; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Common Council finds that the designation is compatible with and will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further RESOLVED, that the John Snaith House, 140 College Ave., meets the definition of a local landmark as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows: A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present; B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles; C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest and be it further RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council approves the designation of the John Snaith House and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #68.-6-2 as a local landmark. Narrative Description of Property: Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, Ithaca The Grand View House is a multiple dwelling of frame construction, set into an upwardly sloping site on the east side of College Avenue. The general symmetry of its rectangular massing, including the shallow projection of a portion of its street façade, is accented by the axial locations of its lengthy entrance stairway, main door with sidelights, and engaged tower. There are five habitable stories, comprising a ground or basement story that is largely above grade at the front of the building, three primary stories and the topmost story within the bell-shaped mansard roof. The most substantial alterations to the building’s exterior form are the modestly increased height of the mansard roof and the addition at the rear; both have been executed with sensitivity to the original structure. -------------------------------- The three-story body of the building is sheathed in clapboards and framed by corner boards; these primary stories are articulated by horizontal boards acting as stringcourses above the windows of the first and second floors. Ornamentation is sparing, the most notable being raised, “X-shaped” motifs in the flush-boarded panels located above and below the third story tower window. Projecting bays accent the side facades, supported on decorative triangular brackets and rising from the second story level upward. The bay on the north is enclosed, and extends through the mansard-level story; there is a non- functioning door on the first story below. The bay on the south is open to provide porches at the second and third stories, their railings continuing the “X” motif. The windows have simple enframements and 1/1 sash; they are paired in the top two stories of the entrance tower, in the bays flanking the tower, in the outer wall of the projecting bay on the north, and in the mansard roof above the bay on the south. At the front of the building, a porch extends across the projecting portion of the façade, its turned posts supporting small brackets, pierced spandrel panels and a bracketed cornice; its railing has simple panels below a decorative row of rectangular spindles. A lengthy flight of concrete steps leads to the porch, which gives access to the main entry. The wood door with a glazed panel is flanked by narrow sidelights; the transom above bears lettering that identifies this as the “Grand View House.” The central bay in the story above the entrance is inset, with a partially glazed door. Below the porch, the site has been excavated and faced with masonry retaining walls to provide a shallow paved area in front of the basement or ground story, with its center entrance below the steps and flanking paired windows. This entrance area is accessed by a short, sloping concrete sidewalk to the right of the steps leading to the main story. The asphalt-shingled mansard roof of the building rises above a simple coved “cornice” of horizontal boarding, and has a bell-shaped lower slope below a projecting molding or curb. The windows of this story are set into the slope and thus above a sill or ledge. The front wall of the engaged central tower has two levels of paired windows above the main cornice of the building. The tower is capped by a bracketed cornice and flared roof, with small gabled dormer windows and decorative metal cresting. A two-bay deep addition extends from the rear of and at the same width as the original building. As a result of the slope of the site, this addition has four habitable stories, though most of the first story is open, providing some covered parking. The body of the addition is sheathed in clapboards in imitation of wood; the mansard roof is of simple slope, without a curve, and its windows are nearly flush. Windows in the addition are either single or paired. On the south side of the building, the portion of the addition nearest to the original structure has a door on the first story with two levels of glass block windows above, indications of the building’s second means of egress. A comparison of the existing building with a photograph of the Grand View House that likely dates from the early twentieth century, as well as with images dating from the 1980s and information on the Sanborn fire insurance maps of 1904, 1910, and 1919 enables the identification of a number of alterations. Several apparently original features no longer extant include 2/2 sash and shutters at most of the windows, and a railing around the roof level of the front porch. A one-story porch at the rear of the building was 2 superseded by porches at the four upper stories during the 1910s, likely when the interior was altered to provide flats rather than suites of rooms; those porches were removed for the more recent addition. Changes dating from the c. 2000 rehabilitation of the Grand View House include the raising of the mansard roof — and hence the height of the topmost story — and the removal of wooden porches at the rear and construction of the largely enclosed addition. The increased height of the roof has altered its relationship with the engaged entrance tower, bringing more of the tower within the mass of the building and resulting in the elimination of the windows at the side of the tower’s upper “story.” The front yard has been regraded to reduce its upward slope, giving the basement or ground story greater light and view and enabling its access by a gently ramped sidewalk rather than a short flight of steps. This alteration also included the rebuilding of the entrance stairway in concrete, in a form that is less steep but more lengthy. These later changes, while increasing the habitability of the structure, have not compromised the preservation of the essential features of the Grand View House, thus enabling it to maintain its original character. 3 Narrative Description of Significance: Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, Ithaca The Grand View House at 209 College Avenue is significant as the surviving example of several large frame boarding houses of dramatic silhouette erected on Huestis Street (now College Avenue) in the 1880s as Cornell University enrollment surged during the latter portion of that decade. Its tall basement story accommodated a dining room accessible to outside patrons as well as to the resident roomers above, while the mansard roof provided usable space above the main stories, and the distinctive tower gave the building visibility from the community below. The subsequent reconfiguration of the residential stories to provide apartments rather than suites of rooms and the elimination of the boarding function reflected housing trends in Ithaca in the early twentieth century, while more recent improvements have been made to increase tenant safety yet preserve the building’s historic character. The Grand View remains as a witness to the longstanding role of private enterprise in the provision of student housing, initially by a developer from an outlying part of the county and, since the early twentieth century, by a succession of local owners. -------------------------------- The Grand View House was erected during the latter part of 1888 for Hiram A. Davenport, a farmer in the Town of Dryden, who had purchased the property from Lorenzo S. Huestis in April of that year. Davenport paid $900 for the 54-foot-wide lot extending from a point in Huestis Street eastward 250 feet to Hazen Street (now College and Linden Avenues, respectively). From the beginning, the new multiple dwelling bore the name “Grand View House,” its siting on the distinctly uphill side of the street and its tall form affording grand prospects both from and to the building.(1) Construction of the Grand View at No. 49 (later 209) Huestis Street followed closely after that of four large frame boarding houses two blocks to the north — the East Hill House (later The Manhattan) on the west side in about 1885, a more modestly scaled house for Ellen M. Murphy in 1884-85, and two towered houses for James T. Newman in 4 1886 and 1887 (the latter to be known as The Brunswick). These buildings, as well as various smaller houses, were erected near the southern approach to Cornell University as its enrollment increased — from 384 in Fall 1881 to 1,021 in Fall 1887 — and some of its limited dormitory facilities were remodeled to serve academic functions.(2) For Davenport, a farmer with 128½ acres near the hamlet of Etna, the Huestis Street parcel was not his first property in Ithaca, nor would it be his last acquisition in the area near the university. As described in the Ithaca Daily Journal report of his death in August 1900, Davenport “was several years ago a large property owner in this city.” He had purchased property in the southwestern section of Ithaca in the early 1870s, disposing of it in several transactions by the late 1880s. About two months after acquiring the Huestis Street lot, and undoubtedly as construction of the Grand View was under way, Davenport purchased a house nearby at 51 Hazen Street (later 217 Linden Avenue), though he would hold that property just slightly more than a year.(3) Though the Daily Journal of October 10, 1888 reported that Davenport’s new building on Huestis Street was nearly completed, it is not known how soon it was occupied. An indication thereof might be inferred from an April 4, 1889 Cornell Daily Sun report of “the formal opening of the Grand View House, . . . when the proprietor tendered a complimentary ball to the student boarders,” at which “about thirty couples enjoyed a pleasant evening.” The use of this event for dating building occupancy should be qualified. In the first place, such a “formal opening” may have occurred weeks subsequent to the building’s active use. In addition, it is unclear whether the term “boarders” was inclusive of those renting rooms or referred to those only taking “board” at the house.(4) Evidence suggests that Orson C. Brown was the first proprietor of the Grand View House. Whether he was responsible for managing housing rentals as well as operating the boarding facility, Brown’s role at the Grand View is not surprising, as he was identified in the 1888-89 city directory as the “manager” of the boarding house or clubhouse at 51 Hazen Street, likely at the time Davenport had purchased that property in 5 June 1888. Davenport apparently further simplified his responsibilities as the out-of- town owner of the Grand View in Fall 1891, when he leased the facility to the Cascadilla School. This privately run preparatory institution had erected a new academic building on Oak Avenue during the previous year, but would have to rely on rented housing accommodations for its students until its own dormitory was ready for occupancy in Fall 1895.(5) Davenport used this period of apparent stability in the leasing of the Grand View House to engage in further real estate activity in this area south of Cornell University. In April 1891 he sold the rear 80 feet of the Grand View property, facing Hazen Street, to Mary E. Crum of Candor in Tioga County for $500. Just over a year later, Davenport paid $1,800 for a parcel measuring 100 by 152 feet at the southeast corner of Huestis Street and Dryden Road, and in 1893 sold that property as three separate lots along Dryden Road, all apparently without buildings, for a total of $4,000.(6) In Fall 1895, Davenport advertised the Grand View for sale, describing it as a large society or boarding house having 16 suites of rooms, a dining room that could seat 80 guests, a large kitchen, and — in familiar parlance — “all modern improvements.” In spite of offering it “at a bargain and on easy terms,” he was unsuccessful in this attempt to dispose of what by then was his sole remaining property in the city.(7) Davenport’s decision to sell the Grand View at this time seems generally consistent with his other real estate activity in Ithaca, particularly on East Hill, which did not exhibit any pattern of long-term investment. However, mortgage records from the 1890s and the listed vacancy of the property in the 1899 city directory portend a change in the Grand View’s ownership as the result of financial difficulties. A legal notice published in the Daily Journal on January 15, 1900 reported a judgment of foreclosure against Davenport and Lucille Kromer, and on March 3 the Grand View property, along with Davenport’s farm in the Town of Dryden, were sold at auction for $3,500 and $1,500, respectively.(8) 6 The auction sale of Davenport’s property in 1900 was to the mortgage holder, under whose nearly eight-year ownership the Grand View House would be operated by several different persons. During that time, there was some indication that the rooming and boarding functions of the facility were under separate management.(9) In September 1907, the Grand View was sold for $5,500 to Mary Richards Warren, whose widowed mother, Mrs. Martha A. Richards Warren, had purchased the boarding house at 51 Hazen Street from Hiram Davenport in 1889, housing her family and Cornell students there. Though Mary’s name was recorded on the deed to the Huestis Street property, the Ithaca Daily Journal reported that it had been purchased by her brother, Dr. Richard C. Warren, who was making “extensive repairs.” It is likely that Richard Warren continued to have on-location responsibility for the property, given his sister’s marriage in late 1909 and move to Baltimore, though she did not actually transfer the property to him until 1920.(10) It is known that the Grand View House underwent significant internal changes during the first two decades of the twentieth century, but it is difficult to document these with any specificity. The existence of fire escapes was noted in an advertisement in 1900, while ads in 1901-02 mentioned that the building had electric light, and there were the unspecified “extensive repairs” reported by the Daily Journal in September 1907. Evidence suggests that the change from suites of rooms to flats took place during the ‘teens. A comparison of the 1910 and 1919 Sanborn fire insurance maps provides some indications, with the use identified as “Boarding” in the former and “Flats” in the latter, and with rear porches on four stories in 1919 rather than the single-story one depicted in 1910. An advertisement in 1914 announced the rental of apartments having four rooms, a private bath, and a large sleeping porch, while board was advertised separately, provided in the Grand View Dining Room under the proprietorship of Joseph Lisseck, the chef at the Kappa Alpha fraternity. A Warren family member has recalled 1916-17 as a time of major remodeling, described as including the installation of a boiler and hot water heat, and the insertion of windows in the mansard story.(11) 7 The changes that were made in the Grand View House during the decades prior to 1920 were both part of and in response to changes in housing patterns in this area south of the Cornell University campus. These came in recognition of the increased number of residents in the neighborhood, a number that included more faculty and staff members as well as students, bringing the need for a greater number and diversity of goods and services. The presence of more non-students, whether families, couples or individuals, increased the demand for housing that offered greater independence. And the occurrence of several destructive fires put increased emphasis on fire safety, whether in design, materials or equipment.(12) The character of the neighborhood south of the university campus, particularly along Huestis and Eddy Streets, had begun to change by 1900, reflecting the changes in its population. This was seen primarily in the construction of several mixed-use brick blocks that housed a variety of commercial establishments on the ground floor with offices and flats above, a trend that continued into the second decade of the twentieth century. These included blocks erected on the west side of Eddy Street for brothers Peter and John McAllister in the mid-1890s, one on the southwest corner of Huestis and Dryden Road for John J. Gainey in 1899, early twentieth century blocks on Eddy Street for John McAllister, and the Chacona Block at College and Oak Avenues in 1911-12. The physical changes in the Grand View House noted previously were part of this trend, and were paralleled by changes in its occupancy as evidenced in the listing of its residents in the 1915-16 and 1917-18 city directories, those largely comprising Cornell faculty members and widows, one of whom apparently had a son enrolled at Cornell and another who had two adult daughters.(13) The Grand View House remained in the ownership of members of the Warren family over 40 years. It was sold in 1948 to Milton A. Teaney and his wife, who likely did not reside there, and in 1957 by the Teaney family to Homer C. and Janet Palmer, who lived there only briefly but would own the property for more than 40 years. There appear to have been few changes to the building following the Warren family ownership until the property was purchased in 1999 by Beer Properties, LLC, comprising Steven, Beverly, 8 and David Beer. Under this ownership, the frame porches at the rear were replaced by an addition that incorporated a fireproof second means of egress from the building, and the mansard roof was raised to provide more habitable living space, while maintaining the profile of the original and the locations of the windows. The front yard was regraded, thus improving lighting and accessibility for the ground or basement story, while the entrance stairway was lengthened to provide a more moderate ascent. The wood portions of the exterior, which had uniformly been white, were repainted in varying shades of tan to accent such elements as the corner boards, window frames, and decorative elements, accented with window sash of red. Today, the lettering in the transom proudly announces this as the Grand View House, and its tower may still be viewed from downtown Ithaca (as from the Green Street TCAT stop). The rehabilitation of this property by Beer Properties, LLC has been publicly recognized with a Rotary Club-City of Ithaca Pride of Ownership Award in 2002 and a Historic Ithaca Award of Merit in 2003.(14) Endnotes: Note: The citations provided below are abbreviated; full bibliographic information follows. (1) IDJ, Oct. 10, 1888; Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 132, p. 23; CDS, Apr. 4, 1889; Beers, “Map of City of Ithaca” (1889). (2) For the East Hill House, see IDJ, Dec. 5, 1885; Dec. 30, 1893. For Murphy’s 1884 purchase of the property for $400, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 14, p. 576. The house appears in Beers, “Map of City of Ithaca” (1889). For Newman’s houses, see IDJ, Nov. 30, Dec. 1, 1886; Aug. 27, 1887; Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 138, p. 337. For a photograph showing the three houses on the east side of Huestis Street, see Parsons, The Cornell Campus (1968), p. 104, though the text incorrectly and without substantiation dates these from the 1870s. For Cornell enrollment figures, see Registrar, “Cornell University Annual Fall Enrollment Records 1868 to Present.” (3) Child, Gazetteer and Business Directory of Tompkins County, N.Y., for 1868, p. 142; IDJ, Aug. 17, 1900. For his 1870s acquisitions and their subsequent sales, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 8, pp. 175, 566; Book 9, p. 61; Book 10, p. 544; Book 134, p. 114. For the Hazen Street/Linden Avenue house, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 132, p. 205; Book 134, p. 329. 9 (4) IDJ, Oct. 10, 1888; CDS, Apr. 4, 1889. For the earliest available but undated photograph of the building, see GPF #N13.56, History Center in Tompkins County. (5) For Brown at the Grand View, see Beers, “Map of City of Ithaca” (1889); Hanford, Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for1890-91, p. 74. For his position at 51 Hazen, see Williams, Ithaca General and Business Directory for 1886-87, pp. 45, 210, and Hanford, Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1888-89, p. 63. After leaving the Grand View, Brown apparently ran the boarding facilities at the university’s Cascadilla Place; Norton and Hanford, Ithaca, Dryden, Groton and Trumansburg Directory for 1892-93, p. 74. For the Cascadilla School lease, see CDS, Apr. 30, 1891. For this association through the 1894- 95 academic year, see Cascadilla School: Announcement for the Eighteenth Year, 1893- 94, pp. 14-15; the listing of the school matron, Margaret Rathbun, at the Grand View in Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1894-95, p.?; Cascadilla School: Announcement for the Nineteenth Year [1894-95], pp. 15-16. (6) For the sale of the rear portion of the Grand View property, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 138, p. 176. Apparently, Mrs. Crum and her husband, Lafayette, would erect the large house on the property for themselves and their son and three daughters, as well as some student roomers or boarders. For Davenport’s purchase of the Dryden and Huestis parcel and subsequent sales thereof, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 140, pp. 45, 282, 291; Book 143, p. 292. Although the 1882 birdseye view of Ithaca depicts a very modest structure at that corner, the December 1893 Sanborn fire insurance map shows an empty parcel; Burleigh, “Ithaca, N.Y. 1882;” Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Dec. 1893, sheet 26. By late 1893, Davenport had disposed of the property, dividing it into three parcels along Dryden Road, which he sold for $2,000, $1,000 and $1,000, obtaining the greater amount for the corner lot. Although the 1898 Sanborn shows three buildings thereon, available information, including the sale prices for other improved properties in the neighborhood, suggests that Davenport was not responsible for the construction of any of these structures; Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins Co., New York, June 1898, sheet 26. (7) The advertisements ran in the Ithaca Daily Journal numerous times between Sept. 7 and Oct. 10, 1895. (8) Sorting out the mortgage activity may prove complicated, and the possibility of ascertaining any relationship between Davenport’s situation and general economic conditions of the time seems unlikely. Neither investigation is necessary for the purposes of this statement. Davenport was, for the first time since his ownership, listed as a resident of the Grand View House in the 1898-99 Ithaca city directory; Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1898-99, pp. 113, 344. For the foreclosure judgment and sale, see IDJ, Jan. 15, Mar. 2, Mar. 3, 1900. (9) Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 151, pp. 512-14. For the operation of the house, see, e.g., street address, name, and business listings in Hanford, Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1905. 10 (10) Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 164, p. 303; Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 134, p. 329; IDJ, Sept. 11, 1907; IDJ, Dec. 30, 1909. For the transfer to Richard Warren, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 220, pp. 10-11 (not recorded until 1930). (11) CDS, Oct. 2, 1900; CDS, Dec. 11, 1901; CDS, Feb. 18, 1902; IDJ, Sept. 11, 1907; Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, April 1910, sheet 15; Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Sept. 1919, sheet 32; IJ, Aug. 8, 1914; CDS, Sept. 28, 1914; Author’s interview with Dorothy Warren Evans, daughter of Dr. Richard C. Warren, Aug. 27, 1986. (12) University enrollment increased steadily from 2,550 in 1900 through 5,549 in 1916; Registrar, “Cornell University Annual Fall Enrollment Records 1868 to Present.” For a list of non-student residents of an Eddy Street mixed-use building destroyed by fire, see IDJ, Jan. 29, 1907. East Hill had gained its own fire company and station in 1894-95; IJ, Sept. 18, 2004, article by the author. While it is not known what type of fire escapes served the Grand View House in Fall 1900, their significance was undoubtedly heightened by the fact of two destructive fires in student residential buildings further north on Huestis Street earlier that year; CDS, Jan. 29, Apr. 4, 1900. There was also increased interest in fireproof materials and construction methods; see, e.g., for a lecture on fireproofing by Cornell professor Martin, IDJ, Jan. 8, 1903; for the construction of Sheldon Court, IDJ, Sept. 3, 1903; for the rebuilding of a burned McAllister block with solid masonry walls rather than brick veneer, IDJ, Jan. 29, Mar. 9, 1907. (13) For the earlier McAllister blocks, see IDJ, Sept. 8, 1894; Jan. 5, May 10, July 24, 1895. For the Gainey Block, see IDJ Mar. 3, 18, Aug. 19, 24, 1899. For a later John McAllister block, its fire damage and rebuilding, see IDJ, Mar. 10, May 20, 1905; Jan. 29, Mar. 9, 1907. For the Chacona Block, see ICD, Aug. 3, 17, 1911; IDJ, July 12, 1912 (advertisement). For the residents of the Grand View, see Goodhue, Norton & Goodhue’s Ithaca City Directory for 1915-16, p. 355; Goodhue, Norton & Goodhue’s Ithaca City Directory for 1917-18, p. 365. (14) For transfers to Richard Warren’s son Roger B. from his mother in 1946 and from him to the Teaneys in 1948, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 291, p. 237; Book 307, p. 199. For transfers within the Teaney family, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 328, p. 224; Book 384, p. 63. For the Teaney transfer to Palmer, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 397, p. 152. For the Beer purchase and renovations, see Tompkins County Deed Records, Book 852, p. 152; City of Ithaca Zoning Appeal No. 2432, dated June 21, 1999, with supporting information dated June 20, 1999. For the awards, see IJ, Dec. 5, 2002; May 15, 2003. Sources Cited: Note: The bibliographic citations that follow pertain only to the sources identified in the Endnotes. The sources that were consulted for this nomination are considerably more numerous, and include Tompkins County and Ithaca village and city directories from 1868 forward, various Cornell University student and alumni directories, numerous issues 11 of Ithaca newspapers, United States and New York State census records, and several photographs provided by Ithaca resident, Kathryn Yoselson. Books and Serials: • The Cascadilla School, Ithaca, New York: Announcement for the Eighteenth Year, 1893-94. N.p., n.d. • The Cascadilla School, Ithaca, New York: Announcement for the Nineteenth Year [1894-95]. N.p., n.d. • Child, Hamilton, comp. Gazetteer and Business Directory of Tompkins County, N.Y., for 1868. Syracuse: Hamilton Child, 1868. • Goodhue, M. P., comp. Norton & Goodhue’s Ithaca City Directory for 1909. [Elmira, N.Y.]: M. P. Goodhue, 1909. • Goodhue, M. P., comp. Norton & Goodhue’s Ithaca City Directory for 1915-16. [Elmira, N.Y.]: M. P. Goodhue, 1915. • Goodhue, M. P., comp. Norton & Goodhue’s Ithaca City Directory for 1917-18. [Elmira, N.Y.]: M. P. Goodhue, 1917. • Hanford, Geo. comp. Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1888-89. Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton, [1888]. • Hanford, Geo., comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1894-95. [Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, 1894]. • Hanford, Geo., comp. Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1890-91. Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton, [1890]. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1898-99. [Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, 1898]. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1899. [Ithaca, N.Y.: George Hanford], 1899. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1901. [Ithaca, N.Y.]: Norton & Hanford, 1901. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1903. [Elmira, N.Y.]: George Hanford, 1903. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1905. [Elmira, N.Y.]: George Hanford, 1905. • Hanford, George, comp. Norton & Hanford’s Ithaca City Directory for 1907. [Elmira, N.Y.]: George Hanford, 1907. • Norton, E. D., and Hanford, Geo., comps. Ithaca, Dryden, Groton and Trumansburg Directory for 1892-93. Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton and Geo. Hanford, [1892]. • Parsons, Kermit Carlyle. The Cornell Campus: A History of Its Planning and Development. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968. • Williams, B. R., comp. Ithaca General and Business Directory, for 1886-87. Ithaca, N.Y.: E. D. Norton, [1886]. Published Views, Maps, and Atlases: • Beers, F. W. “Map of City of Ithaca[,] N.Y.” New York: F. W. Beers & Co., 1889. 12 • Burleigh, L. R., del. “Ithaca, N.Y. 1882.” [Troy, N.Y.]: L. R. Burleigh, 1882. • Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Dec. 1893. New York: Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Limited, 1893. • Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Limited. Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins Co., New York, June 1898. New York: Sanborn-Perris Map Co. Limited, 1898. • Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, April 1910. New York: Sanborn Map Co., 1910. • Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Sept. 1919. New York: Sanborn Map Co., 1919. Newspapers: • Cornell Daily Sun (CDS) • Ithaca Chronicle and Democrat (ICD) • Ithaca Daily Journal (IDJ) • Ithaca Journal (IJ) Public Records: • City of Ithaca, New York, Board of Zoning Appeals, documents for Appeal #2432 (1999) • Tompkins County, New York, Deed Records, Tompkins County Clerk’s Office Miscellaneous Unpublished Sources: • Author’s interview with Dorothy Warren Evans, Aug. 27, 1986 • Photograph, General Photo File (GPF) #, The History Center in Tompkins County, Ithaca, NY • Registrar, Office of the, “Cornell University Annual Fall Enrollment Records 1868 to Present,” Archives #36/1/876, Box 1, Folder 1, Cornell University Library 13 Planning and Development Board Adopted Resolution July 26, 2011 RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue WHEREAS: on July 12, 2011 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to designate the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, a local landmark, and WHEREAS: Section 228-4 of the City Municipal Code stipulates that the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with the Common Council with respect to the relation of such designation with the Master Plan, the zoning laws, projected pubic improvements, and any plans for renewal of the site or area involved, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board files the attached report with the Common Council with respect to the issues stipulated in the City Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board supports the local landmark designation of the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPORT CONCERNING THE ITHACA LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DESIGNATION OF THE GRAND VIEW HOUSE AS A LANDMARK —to be considered at July 26,2011 meeting of City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board — At its regular meeting held on July 12,2011,the Ithaca L andmarks Preservation Commission unani- mously voted to designate the Grand View House at 209 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca local landmark. A map showing the location of the property and a summar y of its historic and architectural significance are attached to this report.Per Section 228-4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code,“Within sixty (60)days of designation by the Commission,the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with the [Common] Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the Master Plan,the zoning laws,projected pub- lic improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.”The designation would only take effect if,within ninety days of the ILPC designation,Common Council voted to approve the designation. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO THE MASTER PLAN:The “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan &Conceptual Design Guidelines,”endorsed by Common Council in August,2009,recommends that zoning in the area of this property be amended to allow greater density in the Collegetown core.However,this plan also rec- ognizes the existence of several historically significant resources within the Collegetown Planning Area that merit designation as local historic landmarks,and it contains the following recommendation: 5.M.Historically significant resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation as local historic landmarks, but which currently have no such protection,should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and designated by Common Council.Ideally,this process would take place concurrently with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-based Collegetown zoning amendments. While the East Hill Historic District and the 1896 Eddy Gate monument already have his- toric designation,other historically significant resources within the Collegetown Planning Area remain undesignated and unprotected.Cascadilla Hall,Sheldon Court and Grand View House (the exceptional tall wooden residential building with central tower and mansard roof at 209 College Avenue),for example,would probably be near the top of any more complete list of currently unprotected Collegetown historic resources.(See Figure 11 for drawings of these three buildings.) With the exception of a specific reference to the “handsome and historic character”of Sheldon Court on Page 7.3,there are only very general references to currently undesignated historic resources in the 2008 Goody Clancy Plan &Guidelines.For example,the section on “Character Area 2:Village Residential,”calls for identifying “architecturally significant detached homes to be considered for preservation in this area.”(Page 6.15)Likewise,the stated goal of “Character Area 4:Preservation B”is to “maintain the historic character of traditional neighborhoods through protection of existing buildings and design controls on the architecture and massing of any future renovations or new construction.”(Page 6.23) But the May 31,2007 Collegetown Vision Statement had recommended (on App.14)that “Identification,rehabilitation,and interpretation of historic,architectural,and natural resources should be included in the scope of the urban plan,”and the June 10,2008 Planning Board comments on the then-draft plan also called for the final plan to contain a list “indicating which Collegetown buildings and structures merit permanent preservation because of their historic significance.” Since it has not yet been accomplished,the work of identifying and designating the specific Collegetown historic resources that merit,but do not yet have,permanent protection remains to be done,and should be done expeditiously,to provide all the community benefits stated in §228-2 of the “Landmarks Preservation”chapter of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.[...] Note that the Grand View House is specifically mentioned in the quoted text above.In addition,the Grand View House is pictured and labeled on Page 51 of the Plan,along with Cascadilla Hall and Sheldon Court,over a caption describing these as “three historically significant Collegetown buildings that con- tribute substantially to Collegetown’s character,but currently lack the protections of landmark designa- tion as described in ‘Chapter 228:L andmarks Preservation’of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.” Furthermore,the Grand View House is included in the “Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research:Icons of Collegetown,Individual Buildings,Architectural Ensembles &L andscape Features”report,prepared by former Alderperson Mar y Tomlan and Planning Board Chair John Schroeder on June 14,2009.Fifteen of the properties in the latter report,including the Grand View House,were identified in the application authorized by the City of Ithaca Common Council on September 1,2010 for a 2011 New York State Certified Local Government Sub-Grant to fund survey and documentation,pursuant to local historic designation and potential nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. There is nothing in “Ithaca,N.Y.:A General Plan”(1971)as amended that conflicts with the proposed designation of the Grand View House as a local landmark. In summar y,designation of the Grand View House as a local landmark is consistent with the goals and recommendations of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan &Conceptual Design Guidelines,”and would represent one step toward fulfilling this plan’s recommendations. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO THE ZONING LAWS:The zoning classification of the property proposed for local landmark designation is R-3b.Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.Ithaca L andmarks Preservation Commission review is limited to the visual compati- bility of proposed exterior alterations,additions or demolition. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO PLANNED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:There are no public improvements planned on the property that would conflict with the proposed designation of the Grand View House as a local landmark. RELATION OF DESIGNATION TO PLANS FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE SITE OR AREA INVOLVED:There are no plans in the City’s Community Development Block Grant program or by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area.Local landmark designation would require that any future private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site undergo review and approval by the Ithaca L andmarks Preservation Commission before work commences. —2 — Planning and Development Board Adopted Resolution July 26, 2011 RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue WHEREAS: on July 12, 2011 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to designate the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, a local landmark, and WHEREAS: Section 228-4 of the City Municipal Code stipulates that the Planning and Development Board shall file a report with the Common Council with respect to the relation of such designation with the Master Plan, the zoning laws, projected pubic improvements, and any plans for renewal of the site or area involved, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board files the attached report with the Common Council with respect to the issues stipulated in the City Municipal Code, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board supports the local landmark designation of the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue. ILPC Meetings – 6/28/11 & 7/12/11 Resolutions RB (6/28/11) and RA (7/12/11) RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Grand View House, 209 College Ave. RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by E. Finegan. WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, a special public hearing held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Grand View House at 209 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca landmark was continued to and concluded at the regular meeting held on Tuesday, July 12, 2011, and WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, dated June 20, 2011, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative Description of Significance, prepared by Mary Tomlan for consideration by the ILPC, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, consideration of the Grand View House as an historic resource was introduced in a report prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009, entitled Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features, and WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines a landmark as follows: A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present. B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles. C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest, now, therefore be it Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Meetings Held: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 & Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Grand View House 2 RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own the documentation and information more fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form, prepared by Mary Tomlan and dated June 20, 2011, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed designation. As described in the Narrative Description of Significance on the New York State Building- Structure Inventory Form, prepared by Mary Tomlan and dated June 20, 2011, the Grand View House, and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #67.-1-12, is a structure deemed worth of preservation by reason of its value to the city as a structure which has special character, special historical, and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca as enumerated below: 1) The Grand View House is a structure that has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest, and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca as a representative building of its later 19th Century construction period. The structure is visually distinctive by virtue of its hillside setting, its partially exposed basement story, the elevated porch and prominent central stairway from the street to the main entrance, and the tall tower with a mansard roof that penetrates the roofline. These features impart a “landmark” quality to the building as viewed today from the street or from downtown Ithaca; however, the property is the surviving example of five newly constructed boarding houses similar in scale that characterized the College Avenue streetscape in the later 19th Century. 2) The Grand View House reflects a development trend that characterizes the neighborhood south of the Cornell campus, and as such has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca. As stated in the Narrative Description of Significance, construction of the Grand View House, like much of the East Hill building activity that occurred in the later 19th and early 20th Centuries, was in response to housing demand caused, in part, by the continued growth of the University and, in part, by rehabilitation of already limited on-campus dormitory accommodations for academic uses. Housing demands spurred by the growth and change of the University were responsible for much of the development in the neighborhood south of the University and throughout East Hill. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Meetings Held: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 & Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Grand View House 3 3) The evolving residential use of the Grand View House from boarding house to “flats” reflects a trend inherent in the growth of the neighborhood, now known as Collegetown, in the first decades of the 20th Century, prior to the 1920s and, as such, the Grand View House is a structure which has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest, and value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca. As stated in the Narrative Description of Significance, in addition to students, by the early 20th Century, the neighborhood was being populated by greater numbers of University faculty and staff. With this change came demand for housing that offered greater independence. The Grand View House retains features inherent to its original boarding house use, most notably the basement story with access to the street originally used for serving meals to both boarders and members of the public, and exhibits the later changes, such as the insertion of windows in the mansard story that reflect changing housing patterns in the neighborhood south of the University. RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission determines that, based on the findings set forth above, the Grand View House meets criterion “C.,” defining a “Local Landmark,” as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, “Landmarks Preservation,” and be it further RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby designates the Grand View House, 209 College Avenue, as a City of Ithaca landmark. RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0 Yes M. McGandy S. Stein S. Jones E. Finegan N. Brcak No 0 Abstain 0 Proposed Resolution Planning & Economic Development Committee August 17, 2011 Grand View House, 209 College Ave. – Local Landmark Designation WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) may designate landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011 and July 12, 2011, the ILPC conducted a special public hearing for the purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Grand View House, 209 College Ave., as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria under the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and on July 12, 2011, voted to designate the Grand View House as a local landmark, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the master plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on July 12, 2011, has been reviewed by the Common Council, and WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within ninety days of said designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to the ILPC for modification; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council finds that the designation is compatible with, and will not conflict with the master plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Grand View House, 209 College Ave., meets the definition of a local landmark as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows: A structure, memorial or site or a group of structures or memorials, including the adjacent areas necessary for the proper appreciation of the landmark, deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as: A. An outstanding example of a structure or memorial representative of its era, either past or present; B. One of the few remaining examples of a past architectural style or combination of styles; C. A place where an historical event of significance to the city, region, state or nation or representative activity of a past era took place or any structure, memorial or site which has a special character and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca, including sites of natural or ecological interest and be it further RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council approves the designation of the Grand View House and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #67.-1-12 as a local landmark. TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner DATE: August 11, 2011 RE: Collegetown Facilitated Discussion Report On August 1, 2011, the City sponsored a facilitated discussion of the Collegetown zoning and transportation proposals at the Tompkins County Public Library. David Kay facilitated the discussion, which was well-attended by over 50 members of the public, elected officials, members of City boards and committees, and staff. The purpose of the meeting was to identify outstanding issues and concerns related to the four Collegetown zoning and transportation proposals: the Collegetown Area Form Districts, the Collegetown Overlay Zone Height Incentive District, amendments to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, and the Design Review Ordinance. From staff’s perspective, the primary objective of the facilitated meeting and the follow-up discussion at the August Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting is to obtain direction from the Common Council on how to proceed with the zoning and transportation proposals. Throughout the facilitated public discussion, the attendees identified and compiled a list of issues and concerns, provided below. Please note that this list of issues has not been edited from the meeting’s list but has been categorized based on topic area. More detailed meeting notes are attached to this memo. Collegetown Area Form Districts • Building Size o Cost, affordability, ownership o Impact on streetscape • Concern about potential loss of historic buildings and character with increased development • Support for concentration of larger buildings at center of Collegetown • Max building height should remain at 60’ • Max building height should be 65’ to allow for ductwork and other mechanicals to address safety concerns • Dislike “Village Residential” CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 2 • Much more danger for out-of-scale development under current zoning. Proposed zoning includes controls on development and form. • Question of the impact on non-conforming structures/uses o TR-2 down zoning • Create mechanisms to require improved maintenance of rental properties • What will be sacrificed if development is used as leverage to promote change in Collegetown? Incentive Zone • Consider tax abatements for uses that the City wants as long as the use remains in the building Transportation/Parking • Blocking of driveways by on-street parking is a problem. • Lack of adequate public parking currently • Conversion of rear and side yards into parking is a problem and is ongoing o Need to reverse/revert back to greenspace • Private developer does not have incentive to provide adequate parking • Need to provide feasible, easy alternatives to car use • Management of thru-traffic through Collegetown needs to be addressed. • Public transportation access to and from Collegetown from surrounding areas needs to be improved. • Pedestrian safety particularly at intersections is a concern. • There remains a keen interest in on-site parking o Cost is issue • Students currently need cars to reach grocery stores and services in other areas of the city o Should focus on linkages between development and services • Consider tiered in-lieu fee based on size of development; City determines use of fee based on study • Collegetown should not be developed without further provisions for parking • Need remote parking with bus service • Illegal parking remains a problem • RPPS is beneficial; zones that are included in the RPPS are limited. Design Review • Binding design review reaches too far and should not affect smaller projects • Work with developers to achieve creativity Further Studies and Information • Need: • Visualization/conceptual design of redevelopment of Collegetown o Including “What would worst case look like?” • Business plan for transportation amendments • New/updated traffic and parking study • Multi-modal transportation study o How do people get to/from Collegetown 3 • Should have parking study and grocery store feasibility study before proceeding • Traffic/parking and transportation study should include entire 3rd and 4th wards and part of town • Developers should conduct the parking and traffic studies • Will the information from the studies be useful? Grocery Store • Some retail including grocery stores need large floor plate to be viable • Is possible to have a smaller grocery store • Need for services, especially grocery store • Concern about economic viability of grocery store without a greater diversity of residents Ownership of Property • Ownership of development by large, non-local entities is a concern • Concern that new development will go to Cornell and come off the tax rolls • Question 312 College Ave and [relationship to] Cornell • Response from owners of 312 College Ave: originally intended to be gifted in the future to Cornell but the University is no longer interested and has not been in more than 5 years. To their knowledge (owners of 312 College Ave), Cornell does not want to be involved in Collegetown rentals at this time. • Letter form Cornell was received → their interest is in property east of Collegetown; Collegetown does not make sense from their financial perspective Other Comments/Issues • Concern about the impact on the city as a whole/balance between neighborhoods • Creating a neighborhood with long-term and short term residents • education, enforcement of ordinances • Encourage year-round activity/population • Need public gathering and green spaces • Desire maintenance and upkeep of existing building stock • Concern about affordability of housing due to higher taxes, assessments • Retail businesses have trouble surviving • Cost of Collegetown apartment rents • impacts diversity of population • Quality of housing o How it relates to safety o How it relates to energy efficiency o Affordability • Investment in properties by generations • Collegetown crime → what are the crime rates? • Council has been trying to address these issues but there are opposing sides and difficult issues • Need to promote development of housing for non-students • Attention needs to be given to the aging population, population that used to see Collegetown as urban center • What are the next steps? 4 • Need to look for middle ground. Staff will attend the August Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to answer any questions about the facilitated discussion or the zoning and transportation proposals. In advance of the meeting, staff would like to note the following: • Staff from the Planning and Building Departments recommends moving forward with at least some portions of the Design Review Ordinance at this time. This would address deficiencies in the City’s existing design review regulations while addressing goals of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.” If Common Council does not want to proceed with binding design review, a new design review ordinance could implement mandatory design review in applicable areas. • If a parking and transportation study is a priority, additional funding will be needed to complete this work. • A grocery store feasibility study would be the responsibility of the developer proposing the grocery store. City of Ithaca Collegetown Facilitated Public Discussion — August 1, 2011  Tompkins County Public Library, BorgWarner Community Room, Ithaca, New York    MEETING NOTES    Meeting Background/Purpose: This meeting was held in response to public comments at the 6/15/11  Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting, when it became evident that community  members were seeking additional opportunities for discussion of some of the most controversial  Collegetown zoning‐related issues.     Facilitator: David Kay, Cornell Community & Rural Development Institute     Common Council Members: Joel Zumoff, Eddie Rooker, Jennifer Dotson, Dan Cogan, J.R. Clairborne,  George McGonigal, Ellen McCollister, Eric Rosario, Svante Myrick    Staff: JoAnn Cornish, Megan Wilson, Charles Pyott, Nels Bohn, Phyllis Radke, Mike Niechwiadowicz.    David Kay introduced himself to the attendees.  He indicated the purpose of his participation in the  meeting was to facilitate the discussion in as fair and unbiased a manner as possible.  The meeting is not  intended to serve any kind of decision‐making purpose, but is intended simply to promote the exchange of  ideas.    The following is a simple bulleted list of unattributed remarks, questions, and concerns that were made, in  the sequence they were presented.    • One primary concern is parking and the potential blocking of driveways.  • Another concern is the increased size and scale of the buildings that may result from the proposed  zoning amendments, in terms of potential impacts on open space, light, and also from a general  streetscape perspective.  The increased building size and scale would also seem to unnecessarily  promote large corporate ownership of Collegetown buildings.  • One participant expressed a concern with the potential loss of Collegetown’s architectural  character and the negative impact on the stock of historic homes.  Forty or more century‐old houses  would be lost and Collegetown would end up with a greater multi‐story building presence than even  downtown Ithaca.  The impact on the city as a whole should be evaluated and taken into account.  • Tension exists between the people passing through Collegetown, or living there only temporarily,  and the long‐time permanent residents.  How does one create a genuine neighborhood, given this  tension?    • Encouraging greater density also represents an opportunity for making a neighborhood less  vehicle‐centric; however, in order to do so, one needs to ensure all essential services are being  provided.  • For many Collegetown students, grocery stores are the most sought‐after service.  • Ensuring the best possible outcome necessitates also addressing the needs of the year‐round  residents.  • One of the things that does not seem to have been addressed in the City’s proposed Collegetown  plans is simply to ask, “What is Collegetown today?”  The City does not appear to have followed the  advice of the consultants that were originally hired, regarding the need for adequate parking.  Part of  the problem is that the so much of Collegetown has been converted to parking.  The excess parking  2 should be removed and turned back into green space.  Furthermore, whatever plan is ultimately  adopted should definitely promote the use of public spaces and other means of enhancing the overall  livability and neighborhood feel of Collegetown.  • Any proposed changes are going to be problematical, unless the City builds a garage in  Collegetown.  Private developers cannot be relied on to put in private parking, since there is little  incentive for them to do so.  This participant also expressed concern with the City’s Payment‐In‐Lieu‐of‐ Parking Ordinance (or the Proposal to Amend the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone, CPOZ).  • Sustainability is a principal concern.  Any proposed plan should definitely be evaluated by the  extent to which it genuinely makes it easier to live without a vehicle.  Private parking should not be  encouraged, either in existing or new buildings.  • One thing recent City proposals seemed to do well was to encourage the concentration of further  development of taller buildings in the center of Collegetown, rather than at the periphery.  Retaining the  high‐quality of the building stock in Collegetown will also be extremely important.  Separately, although  there has been considerable interest in having more grocery stores in Collegetown, there are already  two groceries.  It does not seem realistic, from a customer base perspective, to add more.  Finally,  another important issue to consider is transportation and how to move people in and out of  Collegetown quickly, efficiently, and with a minimum negative impact.  • Two critical issues are public transportation and affordability.  People need to have enough public  transportation options so that Collegetown can serve as a commercial hub, accessible even by people  living far away.  People are also concerned they will no longer be able to afford to live in their homes:  things are already expensive (properties close to Cornell University in particular).  • The design review component of recent City proposals is a concern.  The design review  requirements that were proposed seem too micro‐managerial and would negatively and  disproportionately affect smaller properties/projects.  • Pedestrian safety is very important and should be seriously addressed in any future proposals  (e.g., the intersection of College Avenue and Dryden Street, especially Thursday‐Saturday evenings).   The participant also expressed dismay so many Collegetown businesses seem to have experienced some  such difficulty in remaining viable.  Separately, the cost of rent in Collegetown is a concern: most college  students appear to be able to afford higher rents than many local year‐round residents.    • Quality of housing, safety, energy efficiency, and affordability are all critical concerns.  • One participant expressed considerable concern that large dorm‐like structures would be taken  over by Cornell University, ultimately eroding the tax base.  The larger size of the buildings that would  be permitted under recent City proposals would also be more appealing to Cornell University (e.g., such  as was the case with Ithaca College and the Ithaca College Circle Apartments).  • Another concerns is that larger buildings would also be more likely to be built/purchased by large,  non‐local, corporate entities.  • Collegetown has changed tremendously since the 1960s.  Local businesses have disappeared and  people have left to live in outlying districts.  Generations of families and community members, many of  whom hard‐working entrepreneurial immigrants, have been essentially forced out by larger, more  corporate‐like entities.  • The whole tax base issue is a big concern.  For example, at one point, it looked like 312 College  Avenue was going to be transferred over to Cornell University, and there is a concern this may still  occur, Cornell’s assurances notwithstanding.  • One resident remarked that recent City proposals seem to lack credibility in how they address  parking in Collegetown.  It would help if the City could create a detailed conceptual design of the impact  of proposed changes and what future development might actually look like, under one or more different  3 scenarios (e.g., to help alleviate fears that something like another ‘canyon’, like the one on Dryden Road,  would emerge).  Some kind of commercial business analysis would be helpful, to determine the viability  of any proposal, particularly in terms of the crucial relationship between parking/traffic and future  development.  • One participant contested the comment that was made about 312 College Avenue and Cornell  University.  As co‐owner of the property, he believes the prior comment was made in error.  Although  Cornell University had originally been designated the beneficiary of a planned gift involving the  property, long into the future, they since disavowed any plans along those lines, since they have  absolutely no interest in the property.  He noted Cornell has very rarely purchased properties and  consequently caused them to come off the tax rolls.  Separately, given that so many Collegetown  residents want to see a larger grocery store, certain things need to take place before that would be  possible.  A viable grocery store will require considerable foreplay, such as the assembly of parcels to  make that possible.  Finally, for many property owners the core issue is the parking problem.  Although  providing parking on property premises is expensive, it is highly desirable for many college students.   Even if the interest in parking has declined slightly in recent years, the demand for it remains high.  • One participant indicated he had been striving for years to attract a new grocer to Collegetown.   Although at one time parking was viewed as a necessity, this has changed in recent years.  Much of the  appeal of owning property and living in Collegetown is access to services.  Finally, some kind of  transportation study needs to be implemented (that is broader in scope than simply parking and traffic).  • One participant remarked he had performed a survey of students, who indicated that having a  larger grocery store should be a priority and that one of the principal reasons for bringing a vehicle with  them to school is to have access to larger grocery stores.  Adding another, larger grocery store to  Collegetown, then, might well decrease the need for parking.  • By its nature and by virtue of its location, many students will always have a need to bring a vehicle  with them, given that it is the primary means of getting to the city from many places.  The participant  expressed serious reservations with the City’s Height Incentive Zone Ordinance.  The buildings would  simply be too tall.  The height should be capped at 60 feet.  • The proposed Payment‐In‐Lieu‐of‐Parking plan should include some kind of mechanism linking the  payment amount to the ability to pay and/or the scale of the property/owner.  • Collegetown is a great place to live; it is livable and walkable.  The City has worked well with  Cornell University.  The neighborhood parking permit system, also, has been successful.  One detraction  from Collegetown, however, is that the crime rate seems to undergo a significant annual spike in August.   The participant expressed concern that students in particular are vulnerable to it.  • A detailed visual model of the projected impact of any proposed changes to Collegetown would be  very helpful, as was suggested earlier; however, to be as comprehensive as possible, a visual model  should also be constructed of the worst‐case scenario that might develop under the current regulatory  framework, as well.  • Regarding the parking issue, approximately 50% of Cornell students bring vehicles with them:  certainly, there is still considerable demand for vehicles.  It would be foolhardy not to make at least  some provisions for parking.  Separately, regarding the suggested parking and traffic study that was  called for, this is something developers should be responsible for funding.  • Collegetown should not be destroyed just for the sake of parking. We need to be inventive in  terms of how we approach the issue.  The most important issue is to retain and enhance the character  of Collegetown (e.g., perhaps by adding such things as gaslights, bike racks, etc.).  English towns like  Oxford and Cambridge are excellent examples of what college towns can be.  4 • It was noted that one of the reasons Oxford and Cambridge work so well is that they have things  like park‐and‐ride systems on their peripheries and accompanying public transportation systems.  • It should be noted the original impetus behind the City’s recent Collegetown proposals was  residents’ own dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.  The Collegetown moratorium was  instituted for a reason.  The idea of being able to visualize what the worst‐case scenario would be under  current zoning practices is a good one.  If we do nothing, then the end result seems fairly clear.   Furthermore, there seems to be a stark contrast between the ‘pro‐parking’ and ‘anti‐parking’  community members.  It does not seem clear that any plan will satisfy both sides, so some compromise  needs to take place.  Regarding the grocery store issue, it should be stressed that groceries are high‐ volume but low‐margin businesses; and successfully attracting a large grocery store to Collegetown will  be difficult.  • A parking study should certainly be completed, before considering any changes to the current  system.  • It should be noted the current zoning code does not sufficiently promote safety, building quality,  and aesthetics; and the proposed Height Incentive Zone Ordinance would have gone a long way to  improving these types of things.  Separately, regarding Cornell University’s long‐term plans in  Collegetown: (1) Stephen Johnson, Cornell Vice President, Government & Community Relations,  explicitly disavowed any property development/acquisition plans in Collegetown; and (2) John  Gutenberger, also Cornell Vice President, Government & Community Relations, indicated essentially the  same thing, in another letter regarding Cornell’s long‐term plans (Gutenberger referred interested  parties to Cornell’s Master Plan).     • A member of the City’s Building Department indicated that part of the problem with many typical  Collegetown buildings is that their mechanicals have to be crammed into the space above the ceilings,  which suggests that more flexibility regarding permitted heights might be helpful.  The other major  problem common to Collegetown is that the Building Department constantly has to deal with a  considerable amount of illegal parking activity and illegal lot configurations.  In response to a comment  made earlier, the participant clarified that the $10,000/parking space payment‐in‐lieu fee would  generally apply only to new construction and to existing structures only in those instances when the  owner proposes new construction.  • One participant noted that in the past certain Collegetown neighborhoods seem to have  dominated the discussion.  These kinds of issues need to be discussed collaboratively.  • There is nothing in the proposed zoning amendments that seems to promote non‐student  housing.  Also, regarding the comment about the success of neighborhood parking permits, not all  streets/neighborhoods were fortunate enough to receive them.  • The City should find ways to attract people of all income levels and promote diversity.   Additionally, any traffic/parking study should go beyond the central Collegetown core, into at least the  Third and Fourth Wards.  It might also be helpful to examine how Collegetown functioned in decades  past and seek ways to restore it to the way it was.  New mechanisms to require and/or encourage better  maintenance of existing properties should also be devised.   • Leveraging real change in Collegetown will require sacrifices that people have not necessarily  focused on yet, in the discussion.  Also, it would be helpful if the City examined how property  assessments would likely be impacted by suggested changes, on a property‐by‐property basis.  • There is more risk associated with the current zoning framework than with any of the changes that  have been proposed to date.  Right now, an entire block could be consolidated into one parcel, for  example.  The City’s proposed changes actually limit excessive development more than the current  system.  The proposed changes also promote a higher quality building stock (e.g., size of façades, the  variety and character of buildings, etc.).  5 • One serious concern under current zoning is that some properties that suffer from catastrophic  incidents, such as fires, are subsequently required to rebuild with fewer rooms or other restrictions, if  they were originally designated as non‐conforming uses.      Adjournment  JoAnn Cornish, Planning and Development Director, thanked the attendees for their participation.  The  next steps will be to organize the issues that have been raised, clarify some, if necessary, and make the  meeting notes available to the public.  A request will also be made of the Common Council to take up  the issue, once again, and provide some guidance.    JoannC Page 1 8/12/2011 TO: Planning and Development Board Planning Committee of Common Council FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development DATE: August 9, 2011 RE: Department of Planning and Development 2011- 2012 Priority Projects and Work Plan The Department of Planning & Development's 2011 – 2012 Priority Projects and Work Plan are listed below for your information. A. Priority Projects - Planning 1. Conclude work on Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines: including Form Based Code, Design Standards, Design Review, Streetscape Improvements for the 400 Block of College Ave., Complete On Street Parking Study including a Pay Station Program – Megan Wilson, Project Manager 2. Dredging – Complete Environmental Impact Statement and Construction Drawings, Construct Sedimentation Basins and Begin Dredging – Lisa Nicholas, Project Manager 3. Commons Redesign Phase II – Complete Design Development, Final Design, Construction Drawings and Bid Documents – Jennifer Kusznir, Project Manager; Sasaki Associated, Consultant 4. Southwest Area – Hire Consultant to review and synopsize all completed studies and recommend if/then scenarios for use of the City-owned 60 acres - Lisa Nicholas, Project Manager, Consultant to be determined 5. Oversee Implementation of NYSERDA Grant Funding to oversee the City’s climate change and energy sustainability initiatives - Dennise Belmaker, Energy Sustainability Project Manager 6. City Comprehensive Plan – Phase 1, Umbrella Plan (Phase 2 being detailed neighborhood and thematic plans). Work with Clarion Associates to complete Phase 1 by fall of 2012 – Megan Wilson, Project Manager 7. NYS DOT Site Acquisition – Continue working with the County to relocate the NYSDOT facility on Third Street Extension allow for waterfront development. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLISSA DESARNO, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development – 607/274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607/274- 6559 Fax: 607/274-6558 JoannC Page 2 8/12/2011 B. Priority Projects – Development 1. Inlet Island Development • Continue working with the selected preferred developer and Common Council toward development of Inlet Island. • Continue efforts to acquire the parcel owned by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and once acquired, begin a Phase II Environmental Investigation and cleanup if necessary. 2. Development of the Ithaca Gun Factory Site and the Adjacent Ithaca Falls Natural Area • Continue work with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Fall Creek Redevelopment, LLC, to remediate the former Ithaca Gun Factory Site. • Administer Grant Funding for remediation. • Start planning process for a park that includes the area at the base of the falls, the rim trail, and the overlook area. 3. Completion of Cayuga Green and Associated Projects • Work with Bloomfield + Schon Partners on the 20-30 unit luxury apartments and future condominiums, known as Cayuga Green 3. • Continue to seek tenants for the remaining commercial space in Cayuga Garage and at Cayuga Place. • Continue working with Jeffrey Rimland to complete plans for the Hotel Ithaca project 4. Complete review for Challenge Industries building and site 5. Continue to work with interested parties on collective vision for Emerson site. 6. Continue review of the new City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant 7. Continue review of means restriction on area bridges 8. Begin Review of the Cornell University Gates Building 9. Continue working towards establishing the Neighborhood Pride Grocery Store to replace the P&C on Hancock Street in the City’s North side C. Grants TIGER III – County Transportation Improvements and Commons Reconstruction to serve as transportation hub and county center. National Endowment for The Humanities (NEH), Planning Grant for the MLK Freedom Walkway – Refinement of design concepts and walkway elements, cost estimates, design drawings and specifications. JoannC Page 3 8/12/2011 PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED AS STAFF TIME ALLOWS and in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan D. Projects of Interest: 1. Revise the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance to include climate change considerations (greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, energy efficiency, solid waste management practices, etc.). 2. Revise the Community Incentive Investment Program Application/City Density Policy. 3. Work towards approval and implementation of the Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan. 4. Create a Conservation Zone(s). 5. Create a Stream Corridor Protection Zone(s). 6. Work on policy for development in Unique Natural Areas 7. Investigate extending Cherry Street for additional development E. Projects identified by the Planning Committee to be done in cooperation with Engineering, Streets and Facilities, the Building Department, and the Board of Public Works: 8. Complete revisions to the City’s Sidewalk Ordinance. 9. Create a City wide approach to parking. 10. Continue discussions on how to deal with backyard parking lots in multi-family residential zones. 11. Assist in the development of a City Transportation Plan. 12. Coordinate with the City, Cornell University, and Delta Phi Fraternity to assess and correct damage to both the street and sidewalk on Cornell Avenue, the limestone retaining wall on Cornell Avenue, and the stone walls on the Baldwin Staircase. F. Additional Projects identified by various sources: 13. Assist Common Council in determining natural gas drilling impacts on and in the City of Ithaca and draft legislation if required. 14. Consider creating a critical environmental area for the City-owned land in Six Mile Creek. 15. Address undesirable loss of urban and natural forms by rezoning certain areas of the City. 16. Work with property owners and business owners (and potential property and business owners) to invest in and improve properties in the West End. 17. Implement Martin Luther King Freedom Walkway. 18. Investigate legislation to regulate wood smoke emissions 19. Investigate legislation to allow raising chickens in the city. 20. Investigate use of City owned land for community urban gardens. G. Projects Identified by the Planning Department to be managed or completed: 21. Ongoing issues related to the NYSEG Coal Tar Remediation Site and the future of the Markles Flats building. 22. Continue working with the Community Advisory Group (CAG) to monitor progress of the Ithaca Falls area and associated contamination. 23. Develop Revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance. 24. Revise Design Review Ordinance and Develop Citywide Design Guidelines. 25. Revise Site Plan Review Ordinance to include new stormwater regulations, pedestrian and bicycle standards, planting and landscaping standards, increased public notification times, sustainability and green building standards. 26. Revise Subdivision Ordinance to be more in line with revisions to the Site Plan Review Ordinance and the Environmental Review Ordinance. 27. Complete City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.