HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-17 Common Council Agenda-FinalOFFICIAL NOTICE OF MEETING
A Regular meeting of the Common Council will be held on Wednesday, November 1,
2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers at City Hall, 108 East Green
Street, lthaca, New York. Your attendance is requested.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
P ROC LAMATIONS/AWARDS :
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Public Hearing on the Mayor's Proposed 2018 City of lthaca Budget
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS BEFORE COUNCIL:
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR - COMMON COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR:
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
Qity Adm i nrstrationGommitteel
8.1 Public lnformation and Technology - Amendment to Personnel Roster -
Resolution
CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
Adoption of 2018 Budget - Resolution
Adoption of 2018 Tax Rate - Resolution
Adoption of 2018 lthaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget - Resolution
A Local Law Entitled "Confirmation of the Sidewalk lmprovement District
Assessments, Budget, and Schedule of Work for Fiscal Year 2018
City Controller's Report
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
5
6
7
8
9.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
10
10.1
10.2
PLANNING AND ECONOM!C LOPMENT COMMITTEE:
Adoption of the City of lthaca Assessment of Fair Housing Under the U.S.
Department of Housing and & Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement Program -
Resolution
An Ordinance to Amend The City of lthaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, entitled
"Zoning," in Order to Establish a South Hill Overlay District
A. Designation of Lead Agency - Resolution
B. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution
C. Adoption of Ordinance
I
10.
10.3
11
12
Common Council Meeting Agenda
November 1,2017
Page 2
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (Con't.):
Local Landmark Designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue -
Resolution
REPORTS OF SPECIAL GOMMITTEES:
NEW BUSINESS:
13. INDIVIDUAL MEMBER - FILED RESOLUTIONS:
14. MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
15.
16.
17
18.
18.1
19
REPORTS OF COMMON COUNCIL LIAISONS:
REPORT OF CITY CLERK:
REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY:
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
Approval of the October 4,2017 Common Council Meeting Minutes - Resolution
ADJOURNMENT:
lf you have a disability that will require special arrangements to be made in order for you
to fully participate in the meeting, please contact the C ity Clerk a|274-6570 at least 48
hours before the meeting
Conley Holcomb,
City Clerk
Date: October 26,2017
8
8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
I
Citv Administration Committee:
Public lnformation and Technoloqv 4mendment to Personnel Roster -
Resolution
WHEREAS, a recent retirement created a vacancy in the Department of Public
lnformation and Technology; and
WHEREAS, after an evaluation of the needs of the department and a reorganization of
assignments, it was determined that a position was needed to focus more closely on
public information initiatives while assisting the Clerk's Office; and
WHEREAS, a new position was created to maintain and grow the City's public
information goals; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Personnel Roster of the Department of Public lnformation and
Technology be amended as follows:
Add: One (1) Public lnformation Specialist
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the position of Public lnformation Specialist shall be assigned to the
Confidential Employees Compensation Plan at salary grade 8; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That for the sole purpose of determining days worked reportable to the
New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System, the standard workday for
this position shall be established at eight (8) hours per day (forty (a0) hours per week);
and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the funding for this position shall be obtained by transferring funding
from a vacant, funded Executive Assistant position, which shall remain on the
departmental personnel roster in a vacant, unfunded capacity.
9. CITY ADMINISTRATION GOMMITTEE:
9.1 Adoption of 2018 Budset - Resolution
WHEREAS, this Common Council is now considering adoption of the Amended
Executive Budget for 2018 at its November 1,2017 meeting, as approved by the
Committee of the Whole; and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Common Council that the total appropriations
and estimated revenues, as set forth in said Amended Executive Budget for 2018, and
as those amounts may be altered by action of this Common Council at its November 1,
2017 meeting, are adequate for the operation of the City during 2018; now, therefore be
it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council accepts and approves said Amended
Executive Budget for 2018, together with any additional changes made in said budget at
Council's November 1,2017 meeting as the City of lthaca Budget for 2018, in the total
amount of $72,232,868; and; be it further
RESOLVED, That the following sections of the 2018 Budget be approved
J)
A)
B)
c)
D)
E)
F)
G)
H)
r)
K)
L)
M)
N)
o)
P)
o)
R)
s)
General Fund Appropriations
Water Fu nd Appropriations
Sewer Fund Appropriations
Solid Waste Fund Appropriations
Sidewalk Special District Fund Appropriations
Stormwater Drainage Special District Fund Appropriations
General Fund Revenues
Water Fund Revenues
Sewer Fund Revenues
Solid Waste Fund Revenues
Sidewalk Special District Fund Revenue
Stormwater Drainage Special District Fund Revenue
Debt Retirement Schedule
Capital Projects
Schedule of Salaries and Positions - General Fund
Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Water & Sewer Fund
Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Sidewalk Special District Fund
Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Solid Waste Fund
Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Stormwater Drainage Special District
Fund
Authorized Equipment - General Fund
Authorized Equipment - Water Fund
Authorized Equipment - Sewer Fund
Authorized Equipment - Solid Waste Fund
Authorized Equipment - Sidewalk Special District Fund Balance
Authorized Equipment - Stormwater Drainage Special District Fund
r)
u)
v)
w)
x)
Y)
9.2 Adoption of 2018 Tax Rate - Resolution
WHEREAS, the 2018 City of lthaca Budget was approved, adopted, and confirmed in
the total amount of $72,232,868 on November 1,2017, in accordance with a detailed
Budget on file in the Office of the City Controller; and
WHEREAS, available and estimated revenues total $49,233,374|eaving $22,999,494
as the amount to be raised by taxation; and
WHEREAS, the Assessment Roll for 2018 certified and filed by the Assessment
Department of Tompkins County, has been footed and approved and shows the total
net taxable valuation as $1 ,894,521,761; and
WHEREAS, under Charter provisions, the tax limit for City purposes amounts to
$34,604,214 for 2018; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the tax rate for general purposes, for the fiscal year 2018, be, and
the same hereby is, established and fixed at $ 12.14 per $1 ,000 of taxable valuation as
shown, certified and extended against the respective properties on the 2018 Tax Roll,
thereby making a total tax levy, as near as may be, of $22,999,494; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the amount of said tax levy be spread, and the same hereby is levied
upon and against the respective properties as shown on said City Tax Roll, in
accordance with their respective net taxable valuation, at the rate of $12.14 per $1,000
of such taxable valuation; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the City Chamberlain be, and hereby is, directed to extend and
apportion the City Tax as above, and that upon the completion of the extension of said
Ro!!, the City Clerk shall prepare a warrant on the City Chamberlain for the collection of
said levy; and the Mayor and the City Clerk hereby are authorized and directed to sign
and affix the corporate seal to such warrant and forthwith to file the same with said Tax
Roll with the City Chamberlain; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That upon the execution and filing of said warrant and Tax Roll with the
City Chamberlain, the amounts of the City Tax set opposite each and every property
shall hereby become liens, due, payable and collectible in accordance with provisions of
the City Charter and other laws applicable thereto; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the total sum of $72,232,868 be appropriated in accordance with the
adopted Budget to the respective Boards, Offices, and Departments of the City, for the
purposes respectively set forth therein. The 2018 Assessment Roll has been completed
and approved by the Assessment Department of Tompkins County and resulted in the
following valuation:
TotalValue of Real Property
Less: Value of Exempt Property
Plus: Value of Special Franchises
Net Value of Taxable Property
$4,434,313,865
$2,570.991,700
$1,863,322,165
$31,199,596
$1,894,521,761
9.3 Adoption of 2018lthaca Area Ulergtewater Treatment Plant Budset -
Resolution
WHEREAS, this Common Council is now considering adoption of the Amended Joint
Activity Fund Budget for 2018, as approved by the Committee of the Whole; and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of this Common Council that the total appropriations
and estimated revenues, as set forth in said Amended Joint Activity Fund Budget for
2018, and as those amounts may be altered by action of the Common Council at its
November 1,2017 meeting, are adequate for the operation of the lthaca Area
Wastewater Treatment Plant during 2018; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council accepts and approves said Amended Joint
Activity Fund Budget for 2018, together with any additional changes made in said
budget at Council's November 1,2017 meeting, as the lthaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Plant Joint Activity Fund Budget lor 2018, in the total amount of $4,235,749
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That the following sections of the 2OlS lthaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Plant Joint Activity Fund Budget be approved:
Joint Activity Fund Appropriations
Joint Activity Fund Revenues
Schedule of Salaries and Positions - Joint Activity Fund
Authorized Equipment - Joint Activity Fund
A)
B)
c)
D)
9.4 A Local Law Entitled "Confirmation the Sidewalk lmprovement District
Assessments. Budqet. and Schedule of Work for Fiscal Year 2018
WHEREAS Section C-73 of the City Charter creates five Sidewalk lmprovement
Districts (each a "SlD") for the construction and repair of sidewalk, and provides for an
assessment against each property located in each SID for the benefits received by the
property from said construction and repair; and
WHEREAS the Board of Public Works has recommended a budget, schedule of work,
and schedule of assessments for Fiscal Year 2018, subject to review, amendment, and
confirmation by the Common Council; and
WHEREAS Section C-73 provides that Council shall amend as appropriate and confirm
the SID assessments, budget, and schedule of work after a public hearing; and
WHEREAS the appropriate public hearing has been held, and Council has given due
consideration to the comments made, if any, now, therefore
LOCAL LAW 2017.
BE lT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of lthaca as follows
Section 1. Legislative Findings, lntent, and Purpose.
Pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law Section 10(1)(ii)(c)(3) the City of lthaca is
authorized to adopt a local law relating to the authorization, making, confirmation, and
correction of benefit assessments for local improvements.
The Common Council has reviewed the assessments, budget, and schedule of work
recommended by the Board of Public Works for Fiscal Year 2018, and makes the
following findings of fact:
A. The public hearing prior to confirmation required by Section C-73 has been held,
and all owners of property subject to a SID assessment appearing to speak before
Council have had an opportunity to do so.
B. The schedule of work, as recommended by BPW and previously subject to
review by Council, constitutes a set of local improvements, the cost of which should be
assessed against the properties located in the SID in which the work is to be performed
C. The budget, and the related assessments reflected on the assessment roll kept
on file with the City Clerk, are necessary to defray the cost of construction and
maintenance of sidewalk in the City, and Council has made a legislative judgment that
each property in each SID is being assessed in proportion to the benefit received by
that property from the sidewalk construction and repair contained in the schedule of
work.
Section 2. Confirmation of the Assessments, Schedule of Work, and Budget.
The Common Council approves and confirms the assessment roll, a copy of which is
maintained in the City Clerk's office, and the budget and schedule of work attached
hereto, and imposes a lien upon each property so assessed as set forth in the
assessment roll.
ln the event there are additional funds available following completion of the schedule of
work, or changes to the work plan are required for financial, engineering, or other
reasons, the Superintendent of Public Works or his or her designee may alter the
schedule of work in his or her discretion, as instructed by the Board of Public Works
from time to time; provided, however, that if such actions affect ten percent or more of
any Sidewalk lmprovement District's annual levy, such actions must be approved by
resolution of the Board of Public Works.
Section 3. Severability Clause.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Local Law. lf any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Local Law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Local Law.
Section 4. Effective and Operative Date
This Local Law shall be effective immediately after filing in the office of the Secretary of
State.
10. PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
10.1 Adoption of the Citv of lthaca ment of Fair Housinq Under the U.S.
Department of Housinq and Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement Proqram -
Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of lthaca (City) receives an annual grant funding from the U.S
Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement program, which
requires the City to adopt and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) by
November 4,2017 as a condition for continued funding; and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the lthaca Urban RenewalAgency (IURA) to
administer, implement and monitor the City's HUD Entitlement program in compliance
with all applicable regulations; and
WHEREAS, the IURA has conducted community engagement activities, analyzed fair
housing issues and completed a draft Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH); and
WHEREAS, Federalfair housing law prohibits discrimination based on race, color,
religion, nationa! origin, sex, disability or familial status; and
WHEREAS, fair housing issues restrict housing choice and access to opportunity for
protected classes, and include:
o Patterns of segregationo Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of povefi
. Disparities in access to opportunity. Disproportionate housing need
; and
WHEREAS, the AFH utilizes HUD-provided data and local information to assess
housing issues; identifies contributing factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate or
increase the severity of one or more housing issues; and develops goals to address
barriers to fair housing; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 13, 2017 during the development
of the AFH; and
WHEREAS, the draft AFH was available for a 30-day comment period ending October
30,2017, now; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the City of
lthaca Assessment of Fair Housing, lthaca, NY as amended to incorporate comments
received.
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10 1
2Ot7 Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) for lthaca, NY
Goal Summary
Prepared for the City of lthaca
Prepared by lthaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA)
*Gools summorized here ore in the formot created by the HUD's Assessment of Foir Housing User lnterloce (pages 70-79 only)
1062017 Retra, S.Unissrm - HUD AFH
overcome more than one fair housing issue, explain how the goal will overcome each issue and the related contributing factors. For each
goal, identify metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved, and indicate the timekame for achievement.
O lnstructions
Goal
Contrlbutang FectotB
Source of lnmme Discrimination
Displacement of residents due to Economic Pressure
Location and Type of Afiordable Housing
lmpediments to Mobility
Lack of Access to Opportunity due to Hph Housing Costs
Location and Type of Afiordable Housing
lnsuffictent on-campus Housing at Cornell Unrversity, rn combination with growing enrollment, results in students ouFbidding non-student
households for off-campus housing
Fair Houslng lssues
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Publically Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
Disability and Access
h[ps /rlri4p8.h.d.go//AftyAssessmergl2/Reryi6,v/1 31 7U86
1 discriminaticn on the basis of aource ol income, by local and law(s)
enforcement and
10152017
Goal
Contrlbutlng Factors
il$e //tr.dapgs.hdgrcM/AlWAssessmerul2/R eview/l 3 t
R6rien, g.t nissio.r- HUD AFH
Uetrics, ililestones, and Tlmelramc for Achievemant
1.1 ln Year 1: Gather best practices and recommendations for rmpbmentation model from among at least three communitres with srmrlar
characteristics (i.e. collegelowns; high value rental markets).
1.2 ln Year 2: lntroduce kegislation within 12 months for adoption within 24 months,
1.3 ln Year 2-3. Upon adoptbn of legislaton, publish an explanation of Source of lncome Protection and the enforcement authority and
protocol on the City's website, for the purpose of educating the public to the new law, where to obtain more information, receive
counseling, or file a compbint.
1. 4 ln Year 3: Orbnt landbrds and tenants to new legbbton in publically-available free rrvorkshops.
Responsible Program Participant(s)
Ithaca, NY
Oiscussion
71tffi
and bw income-levels,atlncrease supply and access to afiordabb
1ffi1{J17 fteviail &lrniesilrt- HUO AfH
Source of lncome Discrimination
Lack of access to opportunity due lo high housing costs
Location and type ol affordable housing (lack of adequate supply of affordable housrng)
Lack of affordable, integrated housing for indlvrduals who need supportive services
Community opposition (landlords not accepting Housing Choice Vouchers and other forms of government-subs2ed income)
lmpediments to mobility (lack of exception payment standard to fair market rent)
lncreasing enrollment at Cornell University (*',l00 studenl per year inrease)
Falr Houaing lEauas
Oisparities in Access to Opportunity
Publicly Supported Housing Localion and Occupancy
Motdca, llllllestones, and Timeframe for AchiovsmEnt
2.1a ln Year 2. Meel with local HVC adminislralors to evaluate tf adoptrng Small Area Fair Market Rents (by zip code) or Exception
Payment standards for hrgh rent areas of the County would expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods without significant
unrntended consequences or a significant reduction in HCVs issued.
2 1b ln Year 3 lf determined to be viable and beneficial, establish Small tueas Fair Market Rents or Exception Payment standards to
establish multiple payments standards within the County, in conjunctron with a transition plan to mitigate any unintended consequences.
2. 2a ln Years 1-5, ln an eve rmore constrained funding e*vironment. priorilize activitie$ ?hat increase acce$s lq ailardable housrng for
LMI individuals such as production of new units. securig deposit assistance and tenant-based rental assistance for HUD Enlitlement grant
funding.
2.2b ln Years 1-5: ln an evermore constrarned funding environmenl, prioritize provisicn ol gap funding when needed lo facililate
construclion of new affordable housing units for HUD Entitlernent grant funding.
Mp6 //hrdapps.hrd. gov/AfwAEse$ sn1 ednSR errier/\r/ 1 3l 7Uffi
,lorr201 7
Goal
Contributlng Factora
Lack of clear and effective tair housing enforcement authority
f@, nr.d4p6.h.d.gMAtr?VAsses$nerul-ZtRwie$r/131
Revicw Su!.nilsio- HUD AFH
2.3 ln Years t-5: l/Vork with local nonproftt developers to add new affordable fior-sale homes to the Community Housing Trust Fund
(cHrF).
2.4 ln Years 1-5: V\fith the County, continue to engage Cornell University administration to expand the suppty of on-campus and Cornell-
affiliated student housing to keep pace wilh yearly enrollment increases, in order to alleviate pressure on local rental market from college
students.
2.5 ln Years 1-5: Continue annual City llnancial contribution to the regional Communig Housing Development Fund that funds projects
that create new alTordable housing units.
Responsible Program Participant(s)
Ithaca, NY
Discussion
clear local and for enforcament of fair
1W6r&17 Re,vra/v Sirnisglm- HUD AFH
Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement
Lack of local public fair housang enforcemenl
Lack of resources for farr housing agencies and organrzalrons
Lack ol stale or local fair houaing laws
Falr Houalng lssuas
Disparities in Access to Opportunity.
Hetrlcs, Mllestones, and Timefmme for Achievement
3.1 ln Year 1 Revise tocal protections to specifo enforcernent authority and meanrngful enforcement process-
3.2 ln Year 2. lntroduce amended legislalion within 12 months for adoption within 24 months
3.3 ln Year 3. Upon adoption of amended legislation, publish fair housing enforcement rnformalion on City websile for the purpose of
educating the public on where and how to obtain fair housing coun**ling or lile a complaint,
Responsible Prog ram Participant(s)
Discussion
Mfr -rtudapps.trd"g(,//Afr'As8€$$m f,1i|li2lqwi6n I 131 /4fih
10612017 Revieur Slrnrssrqr - HUD AFH
Goal
Goal
4. Prevent disphccment h na[hborhoodo wfierc therc b either an estab[Bhed trendline of dhpbcement or imminent threat of
dbp&rcement {i.e. adfacent hlgh-value neighborhoo& uri& hue br-sab homcr}. Eebre Srnaff Arca Fair Market Rents, mini-repair for low-
income homeownee, and expansion of the Communly tlousing Land Trust for mner-occuphd homes
Contributlng Factolrs
Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressure
Fair Housing lssues
Segregation/lnteg ration
totrica, tilestonsa, and Tlmolrame for Achlovement
4.'l ln Year 3: Anatyze home sah data across the region to identify trendlines that indicate actual and imminent threat of displacement.
lndicators include neighborhood home prices rising above median lor the jurisdiction and changes in neighborhood composilion.
4.2 ln Year 1-5: Prbritize (1) small repair (i.e. "mini repair" program) and rehabilitation of homes owned by LMI homeowners in
neighborhoods klentified as erperiencing displacement and (2) creation of new afiordable housing opportunities in gentrifying
neighborhoods.
4.3a ln Year 2: Meet wilh bcal HVC administrators to evaluate if adopting Srnal Area Fair Market Rents (by zip code) or Exception
Payment standards br high rent areas of the County would expand acccss to high opportunity neighborhoods without significant
unintended consequenoes or a significant reductbn in HCVs issued.
4 3b ln Year 3 lf determrned to be viable and beneficral, establish Small Areas Fair Market Renls or Excepton Payment standards to
establish multiple paymenls standards wilhin the County, in conlunction with a transilbn plan to mitigate any unintended consequences.
Responslble Program Partlcipant(s)
H$e:lltrdry,tud.got /AfrAssessmertl.z/Rerriarr/l3l 7vm
R6ri6^, Sdrnissim - HUD AFH
Discussion
Goal
Contributing Factors
Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficrency.
Fair Housing lssues
Disparities in Access to Opportunrty
iletrlcs, Xileetoner, and Tlmafiame lor Achievemont
5. 1 ln Year 3 Revrse Clty (Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan rn order lo incorporate a Language Assrstance Plan (LAP) in order to
increase access to City services and programs for persons from varying ethnic backgrounds.
5..2 ln Year 4: lmplement LAP across City departments.
5.3 ln Year 5. Partner with existing community groups to conduct outreach to LEP rndivrduals, service provrders, and the general public to
raise awareness of the new LAP, its purpose, and how to access rt-
Responslble Program Pa rtlclpant(s)
Ithaca, NY
r0G2017
|ttps /tr.d4p hrdgdAltyAssessrnerUl2/R6rietrr/131 7646
Address ths need br a for LimitedAsststance Profcient
106/201 7
Discussion
Goal
Re\riq,v sltrnissi'| - HUD AFH
Contributing Factom
Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for vrctims of domestic vplence, dating violence, sexual assaull, and stalking
Fair Houeing lrsues
Disproportbnate Access to Opportunity
Fair Housing Enforcement
lletrics, llilestonet, and Timelrame for Achievement
1.1 ln Year 4: Request the assistance of local experts (Freedom from Molence VVorkgroup) to convene task force to identify and
recommend best practices br protecting the housing rights of domestic violence survivors
1.2 ln Year 5: Collaborate with the Advocacy Center to provide training on specific rights and protections for domesttc violence survivors
from housing discrimination.
tt$e.litrfap.trdgwiAlwA8sessmerUl.ZRe{i€vv/l 3l NM
and/or lack of for victims of domesticevtctbnthel result in
andsexual
10,82017 Rrrcrv S.finisdo - HUD AFH
Responsible Program Participant(s)
Discussion
Goal
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing bsuee
Dspantres an Access to Opportunlty
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Segregation
Disability and Access
illetrics, ilileetones, and Timeframe for Achlevement
7 1 Add new goal to 2019-2023 Consolidated Plan.
ffFc /lxd4p6,.hdgov/Arh/AtssessmcrillztRet i6\r/1 31 /&8ti
. Create an within the 2018-2023 consc{l,ated
twt2017 Rarie\^, SLsni66ioo - HUD AFH
7 .2 ln trme lor 2019 Action Plan Funding Cycle, establish guidance (i.e. review criteria) for projects considered for funding in each Action
Plan cycle that prioritizes those projects that address one or more underlying prority contribuling factors that creale, conlribute to,
perpetuate or increase the severity ol a fair housing issues
Roaponsible Program Participant(s)
Discussion
Oocuments
File
AF H Contributin g Factor Table.docx (l Alh I DacumentMew/95 3 )
Description
Contributing Factors Table
Uploaded
1018t2017 2:18 14 ?M
User
MZV889
Maps
Map 1 - RacelEthnicity (Race/Ethnioty)
llhaca, New York Jurisdiction l..l..l..lArcGisYQ4lMapNQ4/AF FHT0002t1OQl363168,/J1
Ithaca, NY Region ( ./,./../ArcGisY04lMapN04/AFFHT0002/1 001363'168/R)
Map 2 - RacelEthnicity Trends (Race/Ethnicity Trends, '1990)
Race/Eth nicity Trends, 1 990
t@ /trdapp.hrd. golAlt!'AsEessmerVLZne /ie,r//131 7g*
10.2 An Ordinance to Amend The Citv of lthaca Municipal Code. Chapter 325.
entitled "Zoning." in Order to Establish a South Hill Overlav District
A. Desiqnation of Lead Aqencv - Resolution
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City of Municipal Code entitled "lnitial
Review of Actions and Establishing Lead Agency" require that a lead agency be
established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an "Type 1" Action pursuant to the City
of lthaca Environmental Quality Review (CEOR) Ordinance, which requires
environmental review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the proposal to amend the City of lthaca
Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning," To Create a South Hill Overlay District
B. Determination of Environmental Significance - Resolution
WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to amend the City of lthaca
Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled "Zoning," in order to create a South Hill Overlay
District; and
WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including the
preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1,2, and 3 (FEAF), dated
September 15,2017; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a "TYPE l" Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts
as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Assessment Form, dated September 15,2017; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that
the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk's Office, and forward the same to any other parties as
required by law.
C. An Ordinance to Amend The Citv of lthaca Municipal Code. Chapter 325.
entitled "Zoninq." in Order to Establish a South Hill Overlav Dtslriet
WHEREAS, residents of the South Hill neighborhood have expressed concerns that
rapid in-fill development is taking place in the neighborhood and will have a drastic
impact on both the aesthetic qualities and the character of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, currently, this area is predominantly zoned R-1b, R-2a and R-3b, and
WHEREAS, the R-1 and R-2 districts are intended to be lower density districts that are
restricted to 1 and 2family houses and larger lot sizes and these zones are usually
located in areas where there are established owner occupied neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, existing zoning regulations permit properties to construct multiple primary
structures on a single tax parcel if they are able to meet the area requirements for each
additional structure; and
WHEREAS, recent development projects in the South Hill neighborhood have been able
to meet area requirements allowing development of multiple primary structures on one
parcel, which has the potential to significantly change the character of this
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, in September of 2015, the Common Council adopted Plan lthaca as Phase
I of the City's Comprehensive Plan and in 2016, the City began working on Phase ll of
the Comprehensive Plan, which is a series of neighborhood and area plans; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow residents to participate in creating a vision for this area
and for the City to develop a plan for sensible growth and development, the City
anticipates beginning work on an area plan for the South Hill neighborhood within the
next year; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that any ongoing development while the plan is being developed
supports the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City is proposing the creation
of an overlay zoning district that would restrict properties to constructing only one
primary structure per tax parcel; and
WHEREAS, this overlay district will be used to establish the boundaries of the South Hill
Study Area; and
WHEREAS, once the City completes the planning process for this area, it can
determine whether there are locations where in-fill development is more appropriate and
whether design guidelines are needed to ensure new development is in line with the
neighborhood character; now, therefore
ORDINANCE NO. 20'17.
BE lT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of lthaca that
the City of lthaca Municipal Code Chapter 325, entitled "Zoning", be amended as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-3("Definitions and Word Usage") of the
City of lthaca Municipal Code is hereby amended in order to add a definition of the term
"Primary Structure", to read as follows:
Primary Structure
A single structure (located on a parcel) containing a use permitted in the zoning district
in which it is located.
Section 2. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-4("Zoning Districts") of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a South Hill Overlay District (SHOD).
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, "Zoning Map" of the City of lthaca Municipal
Code is hereby amended to create a South Hill Overlay District (SHOD) to include
properties located within the boundaries displayed on the map entitled "Proposed
Boundary for South Hill Overlay District-September 2017", a copy of which is
attached and shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's office.
Section 4. Chapter 325 ("Zoning"), Section 325-8("District Regulations") of the City of
Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a subsection 325-8E entitled
"Additional Restrictions in the South HillArea" to read as follows:
E. Additional Restrictions in the South HillArea
(1) South Hill Overlay District Restrictions
a. After the date of this ordinance, any property located within the South Hill
Overlay District with a zoning designation of R-1 or R-2 is prohibited from
constructing a primary structure on any parcel already containing one or
more primary structures, and is prohibited from constructing more than
one primary structure on a parcel containing no primary structures. The
preceding sentence shall not impact future changes to primary structures
existing prior to the effective date of this paragraph.
Section 5. Severability. lf any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutiona! by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the lthaca City Charter
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.2
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART I-PROJECT INFORMATION
(Prepared by Project Sponsor/Applicant) 41251 l1
NOTE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether proposed action may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form: Parts A through E. Answers to these questions
will be considered part of the application for approval and may be subject to furlher verification and public
review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is
expected that completion of the FEAF will depend on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research, or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so
indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action: South Hill Overlay District
Location of Action: South Hill Study Area
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 East Green Street
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: New York ZIP: 14850
Business Phone: 607 -27 4-6550 E-Mai I : j kusznir@cityofi thaca.org
Name of Owner (if different from applicant/sponsor):
Address:
City/Town/Village:State ZIP:
Business Phone:E-Mail:
Description of Action: The action being considered is the creation of an overlay zoning district that
would prohibit the new construction of a second primary structure on any property located in the
South Hill Overlay District and that contains a zoning designation of R-l or R-2.
- Plp,tsp coMpLETE EVERy euESTIoN. INntclrB *N/A," rF Nor AerLICABLE. -
A. SITE DESCRIPTIoN
Physical setting ofoverall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
2
1. Present Land Use:! Urban I Industrial I Commercial I euntic ! Forest
! Agricultural I Other:Residential
2. Total area ofproject area:170 acres (Chosen units also apply to following section.)
Approximate Area (Units in Question 2 above apply to this section.)Currently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural)25 ,<
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)].5
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public t0 l0
29. Unvegetated (i.e., rock, earth, or fill)
2h. Roads, Buildings, & Other Paved Surfaces 135 135
2i. Other (indicate type)
3a. What is the predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): _Sloan-Teel, alluvial land,
Hamlin-Teel, Hamlin. fan-Palmyra_Howard-Chenango, Hudson-Dunkirk, Lordstown-Arnot, Cazenovia-
Ovid Varies
3b. Soil Drainage:Well-Drained:_of Site
f Moderately Well-Drained: 1007o of Site
f, Poorly Drained: _% of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site?flves ENo lNra
4b. What is depth of bedrock? unknown (feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table?unknown (feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes:
! o-rox _X to-ts% too oh
| 15o/o or greater _%
%
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it
contain, a building, site, or district listed on or
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
lYes XNo [Nta
6b. Or a designated local landmark or located in a
local landmark district?
lYes XNo lNta
7. Do hunting and/or fishing opportunities currently
exist in the project area?! Yes X No ! xln lf "Yes," identify each
species:
4l25lt7
.5
A. strr DESCRIPTION (concluded)
8. Does project site contain any species of plant
and/or animal life identified as threatened or
endangered?
[Yes ENo [Nza
According to: _Unique Natural Area Inventory of
Tompkins County the UNA 156, which borders this
district, has been found to contain at least 1 species
of plant that has been identified by NYS as
endangered, threatened, or rare. each species:
Specifically the broad beech fern, the
northern beech fern, and the walking fern are listed as
having been found in this area and as being
exploitable vulnerable. Identify
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on
project site (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)?
! Yes XNo lNle
Describe:
10. Is project site currently used by community or
neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area?
ffives E No lNta
lf yes, explain: Hillview and Columbia Street Parks
are in the study area as well as outdoor recreational
amenites associated with South Hill School.
11. Does present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community?I Yes E No lNla
Describe: Six Mile Creek , Views of East Hill,
Cayuga Lake
12. Is project within or contiguous to a site
designated a Unique Natural Area (UNA) or
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
f Yes ENo [Nla
Describe: Arliaeent to UNA 156
13. Stream(s) within or contiguous to project area:a. Names of stream(s) or river(s) to which it is a
tributary: Six Mile Creek
14. Lakes, ponds, or wetland areas within or
contiguous to project area:
a. Name(s): There is approximately.5 acres of
wetlands along the border of the district
adjacent to the Six Mile Creek.
15. Has site been used for land disposal of solid
and/or hazardous wastes?[Yes XNo ENua
Describe:
16. Is site served by existing public utilities?
a. If "Yes," does sufficient capacity exist to
allow connection?
b. If "Yeso" will improvements be necessary to
allow connection?
[Yes ENo ENta
ENo XNla
E No X xr.r
Yes
Yes
-)4t25il7
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
l. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
la. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor either in acres: The total area being re-zoned is
approximatelv 170 acres. This area is owned by various private and public entities.
1b. Project acreage developed: 135 Acres, initially: NA Acres, ultimately: NA
lc. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: !i1!
ld. Length of project in miles (if appropriate): NA or feet: NA
1e. Ifproject is an expansion, indicate percentage change proposed: !l{
lf. Number of existing off-street parking spaces: NA Proposed:NA
1g. Maximum vehicular trips generated (on completion of project) per day: Unknown Per hour:
th. Height of tallest proposed structure in feet: The tallest structure permitted in this district is 40'. The
proposed overlay district will not change maximum allowable height.
li. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy: |i1\
2. Specify what type(s) of natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the
site: !i{ Or added to the site: $A
3. Specify what type(s) of vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from
the site: Acres: NA Type(s) of Vegetation: NA
4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed for this project?
f ves E No f Nla If "Yes," explain
5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace vegetation removed during construction? NA
6. If single-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition)
7. If multi-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: NA
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase: NA month NA year (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of finalphase: !!\ month NA year.
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? ! Yes I No X Nla
8. Will blasting occur during construction?Yes No I Nl,l If "Yes," explain: NA
9. Number ofjobs generated during construction: NA After project is completed: NA
10. Number ofjobs eliminated by this project: NA Explain: NA
11. Willproject require relocation of any projects or facilities? ! Yes E Xo X XIA If "Yes." explain
44125ll7
B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION(concluded)
l2a. ls surface or sub-surface liquid waste disposal involved? ! Yes E No X NIA If yes, explain:
l2b. lf #12a. If "Yes," indicate type of waste (e.g., sewage, industrial, etc.)
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged?
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds. streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? [ Yes E No X Nl,q, If yes, explain: No change in water surface area is
anticipated as a result of this action. Any projects that are proposed in the new zoning will have to
undergo a separate environmental review as part of the site plan approval process.
l4a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or paftially within or contiguous to the 1OO-year
Flood plain? ! Yes X No E Nla
14b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to:
! Cayuga Inlet I natt Creek ! Cascadilla Creek f Cayuga Lake X Six Mile Creek
! Silver Creek? (Check allthat apply.)
l4c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 of the ECL? [Yes E No ! Nla
l4d. lf #14a., b., or c. is "Yes," explain: The district is bordered by approximately .5 acres of wetlands.
15a. Does pro.iect involve disposal of solid waste? f] Yes E No N/A
15b. If #15a. If "Yes," will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used?Yes No I Nla
15c. If#15b. is "Yes," give name ofdisposal facility: NA and location: !l{
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
I Yes E No I Nla If 'oYes," explain:
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No f Nl,t If "Yes," explain
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ! Ves E No I NIA If "Yes," specify:
17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of historic
Places, or a local landmark, or in a landmark district? ! Ves X No E NIA If "Yes," explain:
18. Will project produce odors? ! Ves I No I Ni,q. If yes, explain: No odors are anticipated as a
result of this action. Any projects that are proposed in the new zoning will have to undergo a
separate environmental review as part of the site plan review process.
19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise-level during construction?
! Yes E No I Ul,l After construction? [ Ves E No E Nla No noise is anticipated as a
result of this action. Any projects that are proposed in the new zoning will have to undergo a
separate environmental review as part of the site plan review process.
20. Will project result in an increase of energy use? ! Yes E No X Nll If yes, indicate type(s):
21. Total anticipated water usage per day in gals./day: NA Source of water: NA
54t25t17
C. ZoNING & PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [ Yes E Xo ! fln
If yes, indicate the decision(s) required:
I Zoning Amendment lZonins Variance ! New/Revision of Master Plan f] Subdivision
! Site Plan Review ! Special Use Permit ! Resource Management Plan
f other
2. What is the current zoning classification of site? _ B-1a, I-1, P-t, R-ta, R-lb, R-2a, R-3aa, and R-3b
3. If site is developed as permitted by current zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
Current Zoning has approximately 15 acres of land zoned R-la, which has a maximum building
allowable height of 3 stories and 35' and maximum lot coverage of 20o/";37 acres of R-lb, which has
a maximum allowable height of 3 stories and 35' and a maximum lot coverage of 25oh;77 acres of
R-2a, which has a maximum building height of 3 stories and 35' and a maximum lot coverage of
30o/"; l0 acres of R-3b, which has a maximum allowable building height of 4 stories and 40'and 40%"
lot coverage;1.5 acres of R-3aa, which has a maximum allowable building height of 35' and 3 stories
and a maximum lot coverage of 35"h;17 acres of I-1, which has a maximum allowable building
height of 4 stories and 40' and maximum lot coverage of 50"h;6 acres of B-la, which has a
maximum building height of 4 stories and 40' and maximum lot coverage of 50oh; and 12 acres of P-
1, which has a maximum lot coverage of 35oh
Is proposed use consistent with present zoning?N/A Proposed Aelion wdlcreateaYes XNo tr
5. If #4 is "No," indicate desired zoning: Underlying Zoningwill remain. Proposed action is to create an
overlay district. Al properties would be subject to the regulations of their underlying zoning
designationo as well as to additional regulations established by the South Hill Overlay District.
6. If site is developed by proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site? The
maximum potential development will be the same as is allowed by the exisiting zoning, with the
exception of not being permitted to construct multiple primarv structures on a lot.
7 . Is proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
I yes E No E Nle lf "No," explain:
8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within at/+-mile radius of the project?
(e.g., R-la, R-lb) B-1a, B-1b, B-2do B-40 B-5, CBD-I00, CBD-I20, CBD-140, CBD-50, CBD-60, CBD-
85, CR-2, CR-3, CR 4,I-1, P-1, R-la, R-lb, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3aa, R-3b
9. Is proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? f Yes E No E Nla Explain:
l0a. If proposed action is the Subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? The minimum lot size under the existing zoning is 3000 SF in
the R-3b zone. There is no change in lot size proposed.
ll. Will proposed action create demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation, education,
police, fire protection, etc.)? ! Ves X No I Nla Explain: This proposed action will limit
potential future development and will therefore not result in any additional demand for
community services above existing potential demand. Any future projects will undergo a full
environmental assessment in order to determine their demand.
64t25t17
If "Yes"" is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ! Yes E Xo X NZn
Explain:
12. Will proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
! Yes X No I Nl,l Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning. Any projects
that are proposed in the new zoning will have to undergo a separate environmental review as part
of the site plan review process.
If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle additional traffic?
E Yes n No X Nl,q. Explain:
74l25ll7
D. APPROVALS
l. Approvals: Adoption bv Common Council Adoption
2a. Is any Federal permit required? ! ves X No f xZa Specify:
2b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? [ Yes X No E Nla
lf ooYes," specify:
2c. Local and RegionalApprovals:
Agency Yes No Type of
Approval Required
Submittal
Date
Approval
Date
Common Council x Adoption
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)tr tr
Planning & Development Board
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
Board of Public Works (BPW)
Fire Department
Police Department
Director of Code Enforcement
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(ruRA)tr
Other:tr
84125lt7
tr
tr tr
tr tr
tr
tr tr
tr
E. INFoRMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information that may be needed to clarify your project. lf there are, or may be, any
adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you
propose to mitigate or avoid them.
F. vERrFrcATroN
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge
Appl icant/Spon sor Name :.Iennifer Kusznir
Signature:
Title/Role:Senior Planner
94125117
City of lthaca Fu!! Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part2 - Project lmpacts
Project Name: South hill Overlay District
Date Created:9115117
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site?Yes Xruo Not as
a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable
development.
Any construction on slopes of 15o/o or greater ('l S-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet.!ves ENo
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles.! ves E tto
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface.Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage.Ives Eruo
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.! ves lI No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill ! ves E t'lo
Construction in designated floodway ! ves E tto
Other impacts (if any):!ves Eruo
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? f Ves X t'lo
Specific land forms (if any)! ves E tto
4125ll7 t0
tr tr
tr tr
tr tr
T
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body desig nated as protected (under article 15 or 24 ot
esxNoEnvironmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)?
Developable area of site contains protected water body !ves Eruo
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream.!ves Euo
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body.Ives ENo
Construction in designated freshwater wetland !ves Eruo
Other impacts (if any)
Ives ENo
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? [Ves Xtlo Not as a
result of the action, which is for proposed zoning.
A 10o/o increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area.lvesEuo
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area.Ives Eruo
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga lnlet?[vesENo
Other impacts (if any)
!ves Euo
4125117 lt
tr
tr
tr tr
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
!mpact
Can lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? [ Ves X no Not as a result of the
action, which is for proposed zoning
Project will require discharge permit.!ves Eruo
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project.!ves Eruo
!ves Euo
Project will adversely affect groundwater Ives ENo
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity.!ves Iruo
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute.!ves Eruo
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
!ves ENo
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1 ,100 gallons.! ves lI uo
Other impacts (if any)
!ves Eruo
4l25lt7 12
tr tr
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system.tr
tr
tr tr
tr n
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Gan lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Wilt proiect atter drainage ftow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? f] ves X no
Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning.
Project would impede floodwater flows.Ives Eruo
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion.Ives Iruo
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns T Ives ENo
Other impacts (if any
I ves E tto
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Wall project affect air quality? ! Ves X t'lo Not as a result of the action, which is for
proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable development.
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day.!ves ENo
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day.!ves ENo
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
!ves ENo
Other impacts (if any)
! ves E t'lo
4125117 t3
u
tr
tr
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Witl project affect any threatened or endangered species? ! Ves X tto
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site.!ves ENo
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat.!ves Eruo
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes.tr Ives ENo
Other impacts (if any):
!ves INo
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
I Ves X t'lo Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning.
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species.!ves Eruo
Proposed action requires removal or more than/z acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation.I ves f] No
Other impacts (if any):
tr !ves Eruo
4t25117 t4
tr tr
tr
tr
tr
T
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Can lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Ghange?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Wall proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? [Ves X Uo Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning, which
will reduce the amount of allowable development.
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural
Ives INo
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to
users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area.!ves Eruo
Other impacts (if any)
fves Eruo
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed
importance?
action i mpact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
X ttoES
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
!ves Euo
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site.Ives Eruo
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
! ves E t'to
Other impacts (if any)
Ives ENo
4125117 l5
tr
tr tr
tr
tr
T
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or qualaty of existing or future open spaces, or
recreataonal opportunities? ! Ves X ruo
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity.tr !ves ENo
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community.!ves ENo
Other impacts (if any):
!ves ENo
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natura! area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? ! ves X ruo -See Part lll
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA?Ives Eruo
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource flves E No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource !ves Eruo
! ves E trto
4125lt7 t6
tr
tr
tr
Other impacts (if any):
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Can lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Wilt there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ! Ves X f'lo Not as a result of
the action, which is for proposed zoningo which will reduce the amount of allowable development.
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods.fves ENo
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.!ves Eruo
Other impacts
!ves Eruo
IMPAGT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuet or energy supply? ! Ves X t'lo
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality.!ves Euo
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-fam ily residences.
! ves I tlo
Other impacts (if any)
!ves ENo
4l25lt7 l7
u tr
u T
tr tr
tr
T tr
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Gan Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Willthere be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? [ Ves X No Not as a
result of the action, which is for proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable
development.
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility?Ives Eruo
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day)Ives Iruo
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure.! ves E trto
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen.!ves Eruo
Other impacts (if any):
Ives ENo
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Witl proposed action affect public health and safety? ! Ves X ruo
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
!ves Eruo
Proposed action may result in burial of "hazardous wastes" in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
!ves Eruo
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
! ves E trto
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
4125117 l8
tr
tr tr
tr
tr tr
tr
tr T
tr !ves Eruo
Sma!!-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
lmpact
Gan lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel Ives Euo
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Ives [ruo
Other impacts (if any)
!ves ENo
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND GHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? [ Ves ! ttto -See
Part lll
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
! ves E trto
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
!ves Eruo
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or
goals.Ives Euo
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use.!ves ENo
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community !ves ENo
Development will create demand for additional community
services (e.9., schools, police, and fire, etc.)! ves I trto
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions.!ves INo
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses.!ves ENo
Small-to-
Moderate
lmpact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can lmpact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
4l25lt7 l9
tr tr
X
tr
tr
Other impacts (if any)
!ves Iruo
19. ls there public controversy concerning the proposed action? [ Ves E No f] Unknown
4125117 20
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part3-Projectlmpacts
Project Name: South Hill Overlay District
Date Created:9ll9ll7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The action being considered is the proposed creation of a South Hill Overlay District.
Currently, the South Hill neighborhood is predominantly zoned R-lb, R-2a and R-3b. The R-l and R-2
districts are intended to be lower density districts that are restricted to I and 2 family houses and larger lot
sizes. These zones are usually located in areas where there are established owner occupied neighborhoods.
However, if all of the site requirements are able to be met, a property owner may construct multiple primary
structures on one lot. Several recent projects in this overlay zone were large enough to satisfy zoning area
requirements and multiple primary rental structures have been built on one parcel. This recent in-fill trend
has caused concern for residents who feel negatively impacted by the change in the character and aesthetics
of the neighborhood.
In September of 2015, the Common Council adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. ln 2016, the City began working on Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, which is a series of
neighborhood and area plans. In order to allow residents to weigh in on a vision for their neighborhood, the
City is working on area plans for sensible growth and development. The City anticipates beginning work on
the South Hill Study Area within the next year. To ensure that development in this area while the plan is
being worked on supports the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City is proposingthe creation an
overlay zoning district that would only allow one primary structure per parcel. An overlay district would
allow the City to establish the study area and restrict further in-fill development. Once the City goes through
the planning process for this area, it can determine whether there are locations where in-fill development is
appropriate and whether design guidelines are needed to ensure the development is in line with the
nei ghborhood character.
IMPACT ON LAND. WATER. DRAINAGE. AIR - Little to No Impact
The proposed district is bordered by the Six Mile Creek and by approximately .5 acres of wetlands on its
northern border.
However, since the action being evaluated is the adoption of new zoning. it does not contain any immediate
physical impacts on land, water, drainage, plants, or animals. Any new projects that are proposed will need
to undergo a complete environmental review as part of the site plan review process. Furthermore, the
proposed change is expected to be more protective of the environment, as it will limit future potential
development. Therefore the anticipated impacts are expected to be small if any.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES (views, vistas, visual neighborhood character) - Positive lmpact
The proposed action may have an impact on the visual characterof the neighborhood. The existing zoning
permits multiple primary structures on one parcel. This has the potential to change predominantly owner
occupied neighborhoods into predominantly rental neighborhoods. The proposed action is expected to have
a positive impact in that it will prevent further in-fill development thereby protecting the existing character of
the neighborhood.
4t25^'.7 21
IMPACT ON UNIOUE NATURAL AREAS ruNA) - Little to No Impact
The proposed district is bordered by the LINA-156 Six Mile Creek. However, since the action being
evaluated is the adoption of new zoning, it does not contain any immediate impact on the adjacent unique
natural area. Furthermore, the proposed action will reduce the potential development in this area, and is
therefore more protective of the UNA.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD - Positive
Impact
The proposed action has a potential positive impact on the character of the community as it will limit the
amount of density in the neighborhood by only permitting one primary structure per parcel. This is expected
to be a positive impact in helping to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. At the August
meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee of the Common Council, several residents
were in attendance to express concerns over this in-fill development. However, there were also several
people in attendance who felt that the neighborhood was already predominantly rental units and were
supportive of constructing additional housing in this area.
4125117 22
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.2
Proposed Boundary for South Hill Overlay District - September 2017
ifl.fi
L_
1-*
J
D
O6
6
O
qt
E
Io
t'
Legend
1_l South Hill Planning Area
[__l city Boundaryi--- NI I Parks
^- *r"*r, A0.1 0.2 Miles
September 20, 201 7
EC
J
I
\,
,\
t-
J
i
PLEASANT ST
a,1
(f\
(r)
HILLVIEW PL
aa
-o
9.L
(n.
l--
'O)
^\a
AC
\)
(,)
HUDSON PL
6e
Re: ISHCA-LIST] Proposed South Hill Overlay District - September 2017 https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa./?ae=ltcm&t=lPM.Note&id=RgAAA..
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.2
Re: [SHCA-LIST] Proposed South Hill Overlay District - September 2OL7
John Graves ffohngraves3 19@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, October 03,2017 4:48 PM
To: lennifer Kusznir; Deborah Grunder
Before the Planning and Economic Development Committee moves the overlay ordinance that will restrict infill development
on to Common Council, I urge the Committee to read or at least skim the report below titled: Smart Growth and Economic
Success: Investing In Infill Development . . .
Executive Summary
Smart growth development projects are compact and walkable, ol'fcr a mix of uses, ancl crcatc a sense of place. Such projects
on infill sites have environmental benefits because they can reduce development pressure on outlying areas, helping to
safeguard lands that serve important ecological functions; can reducc the amount that peoplc drive, improving air quality and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and can lead to the cleanup and reuse of formerly cconornically viable but now
abandoned sites, including those contaminated with hazardous substances.
https ://www.epa. gov/sites/producti on/fi les/20 1 4-06ldocuments/developer-i nfil I -paper-508b.pdf
John Graves
319 Pleasant Street
Ithaca, NY
607-279-4980
From: Deborah Grunder
Sent: Friday, September 22,2or7 3:3r PM
To: Deborah Grunder
Subject: Proposed South Hill Overlay District - September zorT
HelloAll,
Attached and from the following link for your review and comment is a proposal to create a South Hill Overlay District.
http ://www.ciVofi thaca.org/ DocumentCenter/View/6qsg
Several recent projects in this neighborhood have been able to meet current requirements that are in place and have
constructed multiple primary rental structures on one lot. This recent in-fill development has the potential to drastically
impact both the aesthetic qualities and the character ofthe neighborhood.
In order to allow the neighborhood to weigh in on the vision for this area and the City to develop a plan for sensible
growth and development the City anticipates beginning work on an area plan for the South Hill neighborhood within
the next year. To ensure that any ongoing development while the plan is being developed supports the goals of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, the City is proposing the creation an overlay zoning district that would restrict properties to
only having one primary structure.
An overlay district would allow the City to establish the study area and restrict further in-fill development. Once the
City goes through the planning process for this area, it can determine whether there are locations where in-fill
development makes sense and whether guidelines are needed to ensure the development is in line with the
neighborhood character.
I of 3 l\l3l20l7.5:19 PM
2of3 l\l3l20l7.5:19 PM
Re: [SHCA-LIST] Proposed South Hill Overlay District - September 2017 https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa,/?ae=ltem&t=lPM.Note&id=RgAAA..
The attachment as well as the link is a draft ordinance to create a South Hill Overlay District. A draft Full
Environmental Assessment Form (Ffap; for this action is also provided in addition to the study area map.
The Planning and Economic Development Committee of the Common Council will considerthis proposal at their
regularly scheduled meeting on October tL,2or7. Your comments are respectfully requested prior to October 4, zorT
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Jennifer Kusznir al 274-6410 or jkusznir(u cit)fu.
Thank you,
Deborah Grunder
Executive Assistant
Planning, Building, Zoningand Economic Development Department
City of Ithaca, 3oz City Hall
ro8 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY r485o
Phone: (6oZ)zZ+-6SSt
Fax: (6oZ) 274-6558
Email: dgrunderCricityofi thaca.org
"How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, syrnpathetic with the
striving, and tolerant of the weak because someday in life you will have been all of these."
George Washington Carver (Agricultural botanist and inventor, former slave, c.186o -L943)
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-'-r-'-Posted by: Cynthia Brock <cynthia.nv8@gmail.com>
Reply via web post ' Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic ' Messages in this topic (1)
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market.
What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and
more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000G8 of free cloud storage.
Please forward this message to one neighbor who DOES NOT yet receive South Hill Civic Association Listserv
messages.
Strength is often found in numbers and we need all the local support we can garner.
To subscribe to the SHCA listserv send name and email to sallyiane59@qmail.com.
STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!
This list is spam-free! For Yahoolcroups FAQ's and help getting started go to
http : //help. yahoo. com/help/qroups/
Re: [SHCA-LIST] Proposed South Hill Overlay District - September 2017 https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa./'lae=ltem&t=lPM.Note&id=RgAAA.
VISIT YOUR GROUP
. Privacy. Unsubscribe. Terms of Use
<FroposedSouthHil lOverlayDi stric t_09 _20 _201 7- 1 .pdf>
3 of 3 lol3l2o17 . 5: l9 PM
SI\4ART GROWTH AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS:
INVESTING IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.2
srEmHII*mn,Pmtec*on
February 2014
www. epa. gov/smartgrowth
.;f
?,'
.{..:l
,,'
t sJdfl
It
t -i!.e
a
i"rl
t
:'
A I;,.i.r
r'l
I
I
I
1
a
FI;F
rui. itt!F-t
af,rr
*
I ;
i t,il
. ,tt
1,,. "r.t ITil.
Office of Sustainable Communities
Smart Growth Program
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Sustainable
Communities with the assistance of Renaissance Planning Group and RCLCO under contract number
EP-W-11-0091010/L7. Christopher Coes (Smart Growth America); Alex Barron (EPA Office of Policy);
Dennis Guignet and Robin Jenkins (EPA NationalCenterfor Environmental Economics); and Kathleen
Bailey, Matt Dalbey, Megan Susman, and John Thomas (EPA Office of Sustainable Communities)
provided editorial reviews.
EPA Project Leads: Melissa Kramer and Lee Sobel
Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommendation.
This paper is part of a series of documents on smart growth and economic success. Other papers in the
series can be found at www.epa.aov/smartqrowth/economic success.htm.
Cover photos and credits: La Valentina in Sacramento, California, courtesy of Bruce Damonte; Small-lot
infill in Washington, D.C., courtesy of EPA; The Fitzgerald in Baltimore, courtesy of The Bozzuto Group;
and The Maltman Bungalows in Los Angeles, courtesy of Civic Enterprise Development.
Table of Contents
L lntroduction
ll. Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development............
A. Land Assembly
B. Environmental Contamination.............
7
3
3
4
5C. CapitalCosts...........
E. Regulatory Approval Process .....,..8
lll. lncreasingDemandforlnfillDevelopment..................
A. ResidentialDevelopment
L1,
LT
13
15
15
B. OfficeDevelopment.......
lV. Economic lncentives Driving lnfill Development
A. Reduced lnfrastructure Costs
B. Better Economic Returns ............16
Executive Summary
Smart growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense
of place. Such projects on infill sites have environmental benefits because they can reduce development
pressure on outlying areas, helping to safeguard lands that serve important ecologicalfunctions; can
reduce the amount that people drive, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and
can lead to the cleanup and reuse of formerly economically viable but now abandoned sites, including
those contaminated with hazardous substances.
Developers of all sizes-from independent, small-scale firms to large, publicly traded companies-are
building infill projects throughout the country, and are doing so profitably. Developers have sought infill
projects as an opportunity to participate in flourishing downtown markets. Opportunities for infill
development exist in cities and towns throughout the country-infill is now a significant and growing
share of residential construction in many metropolitan regions. Nevertheless, infill development can
present unique challenges, including:
o Smaller parcels with fragmented ownership.
o Potentialforexistingenvironmental contamination
o Higher capital costs.
o More limited financing options.
o A longer regulatory approval process.
These barriers, real or perceived, can discourage some developers, particularly those without infill
experience. However, these barriers are often surmountable and are beginningto diminish as infill
development becomes more prevalent.
Severaltrends point to a sustained increase in demand for infill development and a market opportunity
for developers. Consumer preferences for the amenities that infill locations offer are likely to grow as
changing demographics affect the housing market. ln the next 20 years, the needs and preferences of
aging baby boomers, new households, and one-person households will drive real estate market trends-
and infill locations are likely to attract many of these people. As more people choose to live in infill
neighborhoods, employers are following, and vice versa. Many corporations are moving to infill
locations, in part because they recognize the competitive advantages of being closer to the central city.
These trends in the residential and commercialsectors give developers economic incentives to find
solutions to the potential barriers to infill, and localgovernments are helping as well. Lower
infrastructure costs and higher rent and sales prices for infill projects will help make infill projects
profitable for developers, supporting neighborhoods that are better for the environment and improve
quality of life.
I. Introduction
Smart growth development follows patterns that have defined cities and towns for generations-
commercial Main Streets within walking distance of homes; central business districts where offices,
services, and stores cluster; and close-in residential neighborhoods on traditionalstreet grids. Smart
growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense of place
(see Exhibit 1). Such projects can occur almost anywhere, but this paper focuses on smart growth
development on infill sites (referred to here simply as "infill development"), which:
o Occurs in already built-up areas with existing transportation and utility infrastructure.
. Often repurposes or replaces existing buildings, parking lots, or other impervious areas
o Adds homes and/or businesses near the center of cities and towns.
lnfill development can reduce development
pressure on outlying areas, helping to
protect lands that serve important
ecological functions. When it occurs near
existing tra nsit infrastructure, employment
centers, and other destinations, it can also
help reduce the amount that people drive,
improving air quality and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The
redevelopment of formerly economica lly
viable but now under-used or abandoned
sites, and those potentially contaminated
with hazardous waste, is especially
important. Such projects can improve the
environment while providing multiple
community benefits.
Developers of all sizes-from independent,
small-scale firms to large, publicly traded
companies-are building infill projects
throughout the country that achieve these
environmental benefits, and they are doing
so profitably. Developers have sought infill projects as an opportunityto participate in flourishing
downtown markets.
For example, Denver has seen downtown development grow considerably in recent years. The number
of people living in downtown neighborhoods grew by 86 percent from 2000 to 2012, while the number
of households in downtown neighborhoods grew by 110 percent. Between 2010 and 20l.L alone, the
Exhibit 1: Smart Growth Principles
ln 1996, the Smart Growth Network, made up of organizations
representing diverse interests including reaI estate,
environmental, development, affordable housing, government,
and others, developed 10 smartgrowth principles based on
experiences of communities around the country:
o Mix land uses.
o Take advantage ofcompact building design.
. Create a range ofhousing opportunities and choices.
. Create walkable neighborhoods.
. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong
sense of place.
o Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and
critical environmentaI areas.
o Strengthen and direct development towards existing
communities.
. Provide a variety oftransportation choices.
. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost
effective.
o Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in
development decisions.
Source: Smart Growth Network. "Why Smart Growth?"
www.smartgrowth.orglwhv.ohp. Accessed September 28, 2012
1.
lntroduction
number of private-sector employees downtown grew by 4 percent.l The growth in demand for new
residential and office development in the urban core has pushed developers to better understand how
these new urbanites want to live, work, and play.
Zocalo Community Development, a Denver-based infill residentialdeveloper, has built multiple
apartment buildings in downtown Denver. Early on, Zocalo learned that renters in its downtown
apartments want a sense of authenticity and value connections between each other and their
surrounding neighborhood. According to David Zucker, principal and director of development, Zocalo
staff are "tinkerers, and are getting better and better at being able to identify the factors that allow
residents to feel that connection-not connection to apartment 603, but to the community they live
in."2 They have done this by facilitating connections both internally in their apartment communities and
externally with the neighborhood. They host events at local bars and restaurants to create a link to the
community. By offering features and amenities attractive to their target market, Zocolo is able to earn
rents 15 percent above the average market rent persquare foot in the downtown area.
Denver is just one of many cities where downtown development is thriving. lnfill is a significant and
growing share of residential construction in many metropolitan regions. Overall, infill comprises an
estimated 21, percent of new home construction among the 209 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, and
nearly three out of four large metropolitan regions saw an increased share of infill housing development
in 2005-2009 compared to 2000-2004.3 However, even in markets where infill development is less
common, developers can find opportunities to profit. This paper is intended to help developers who are
considering infill development and want to understand more aboutthe risks and rewards.4 First, it
examines the real and perceived challenges of infill development and how developers are able to
overcome them. lt then outlines the demographic trends that are driving increasing demand for infill
development. Finally, it summarizes research showing how reduced infrastructure costs and higher
property values can allow infill developers to earn a good return on their investment while protecting
the environment, strengthening the economy, and improving quality of life in the community.
1 Downtown Denver Partnership. Stote of Downtown Denver.2012. http://www.downtowndenver.com/wp-
content/u ploads/20L3/06/State-of-Downtow n- Denver-Septem ber-20 12. pdf.
2 Personal communication with David Zucker, Principal, Director of Development, Zocalo Community Development on
December 12,2Ot2.
3 EPA. Residentiol Construction Trends in Americo's Metropoliton Regions.2OL2.
http://www.epa.eov/smartqrowth/construction trends. htm.
o EPA has publications on the economic advantages of smart growth for large-scale developers and production builders of
master-planned communities. See EPA. Smort Growth: The Business Opportunity for Developers and Production Builders.2OOS-
2009. htto://www.epa.eov/smartgrowth/se business.htm and EPA. Morket Acceptonce of Smart Growth.2OLL.
http://www.epa.eovlsmartgrowth/market acceotance.htm.
2
II. Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
Opportunities for infill development exist in cities and towns throughout the country. Nevertheless, infill
development can present challenges, including:
o Land assembly difficulty due to smaller parcels with fragmented ownership
o Potential for existing environmental contamination.
o Higher capital costs.
o More limited financing options.
o A longer regulatory approval process.
These barriers, real or perceived, can discourage some developers, particularly those without infill
experience. This section discusses the realand perceived obstacles to infill development and how
these barriers are often surmountable and are beginning to diminish as infill development becomes
more prevalent.
A. Land Assembly
One of the first steps-and frequently one of the most challenging aspects-of infilldevelopment is
land assembly.s Developers in infill areas frequently need or want to assemble multiple parcels to
create a larger developable site, but ownership is often more fragmented in cities than in
undeveloped areas. Land assembly is often essential in infill locations, and the costs can be high
compared to undeveloped sites. Real estate is generally more expensive in infill locations than in
outlying areas because land is relatively scarce, sites are closerto services and infrastructure, and
zoning and the market often support uses that have higher revenue potential.s However, the
assembly process itself involves additional costs because:
o Multiple owners require additional time for negotiations and higher transaction costs.
o The owner of a parcel that is critical to the success of a project has enormous advantage and can
often command a premium from buyers.T
o Properties can have lengthy chains of tltle that must be established before ownership can be
tra nsferred.8
Developers can mitigate the challenges of land assembly for infill sites by building on smallerfootprints.
Even smallersites can be redeveloped into profitable uses if assembling neighboring parcels proves
infeasible. One architect commenting on the trend toward smaller infill development projects said, "lt
t Nelson, Arthur, and Robert Lang. 'The Next 1OO Million." Plonning.73.l (2OO7l:4-6..
6 McConnell, Virginia, and Keith Wiley. lnfitl Development: Perspectives and Evidence from Economics ond Plonning. Resources
for the Future. 2010. http://www.rff.orelNews/Features/Pases/lnfill-Development-Perspectives-and-Evidence-from-
Econom ics-a nd-Pla n n inq.a sox.
7 Brooks, Leah, and Byron Lutz. Do We Need Eminent Domain? An Empiricol lnvestigotion of Urbon Land Assembly. University of
Toronto working paper. 201.L.
8 Urban Land lnstitute. tJrbon lnfill Housing: Myth ond Foct.2OOt.
3
almost seems like any infill site is a
good site if it's in a good area, no
matter how small or oddly shaped."e
ln addition, many large sites are
available for developers willing to
address possible environmenta I
contamination (see Section B) or to
redevelop commercial or institutional
buildings.lo Many older suburban
areas with good transit access are also
good candidates for infill development
because as the region has grown
around them, they are now in a
relatively central location that could
support more housing and greater
economic activity.
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
Exhibit 2. Small-lot Infill in Washington, D.C. In the 14th Street
Historic District a developer purchased a one-story building that
was not designated as historic. He replaced it with a tlree-story
mixed-use building, now housing an art gallery on the first floor.
Sandwiched between historic structures, the project had limited
space for construction staging and had to fit on a small footprint.
Photo source: EPA
developing innovative programs to address the issue while meeting other community needs like
neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing. Some cities have programs to help developers
interested in creating affordable housing find infill properties already assembled for development. For
example, the Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority helps to acquire, assemble, and prepare
properties for development of affordable housing as part of a comprehensive plan for neighborhood
revitalization.tt ln the Cleveland area, the Cuyahoga Land Bank uses revenue from penalties and interest
charged to delinquent propertytaxpayersto acquire contiguous properties and maintain them until
redevelopment on the site can occur."
B. Environmental Contamination
Brownfields, sites with real or perceived environmental contamination, can present another barrierto
infill development. Many types of uses, including gas stations, dry cleaners, and industrial facilities, can
leave behind environmental contaminants after operations end. Environmental contamination might
require mitigation before it would be safe for new occupants. Even the perception or possibility of
contamination can discourage some developers from acquiring these properties because of unknown
costs and additional time that could be required for cleanup.
' Bady, Srsan. "5 Trends in lnfill Housing." Professionol Buitder. February 20,21lt. http://www.housinszone.com/desisn/5-
trends-infi ll-housing.
'o Urban Land lnstitute 2001, op. cit.
" Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority. "Land Banks." http://www.fccalandbank.orqlbankins.htm. Accessed July
30, 2013.t'Cuyahoga Land Bank. "strategic Land Assembly." http://cuvahosalandbank.orslassemblv.php. Accessed July 30, 2013.
4
lb.tIElu
Ls
L4
r $
Br[
t!l
II ffi
li-t
1.^
(
Many cities realize the challenges of
land assembly in infill areas and are
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
However, the risks of contamination are often factored into sale prices, so developers willing to work on
brownfields can find opportunities to acquire bargain properties. Studies have shown that potential
contamination and associated liability for cleanup lowers property values." However, the property
value discount can be much greater than the costs of remediation. A study in Cedar Falls, lowa, found
that the cumulative discount for all homes potentially affected by a leaking underground storage tank
from a former gas station is 24 to 48 times the cost of remediation (depending on whether the tank is
classified as having a low or high risk of leaking).14 Even factoring in cleanup costs, brownfield sites offer
developers the chance to earn a profit. According to a survey of developers who had redeveloped
contaminated property, 56 percent said that their rate of return for brownfield projects was higher than
their average rate of return, while 25 percent indicated that their brownfield projects were
exceptiona lly profita ble. 1s
The risks involved with brownfields cleanup might cause some potential developers to hesitate.
However, insurance products are available to protect developers from liability and limit cleanup costs.
Pollution liability insurance covers claims from third parties of property damage or personal injury,
property value declines due to the discovery of pollution, business interruption, and legalexpenses
involved in defendingthe insured against claims. Cost-cap insurance limitsthe amountthat developers
would have to pay for cleanup by covering costs that exceed those in a remediation plan.16 These types
of insurance can provide developers greater certainty about the costs associated with potential
contamination when making investment decisions.lT ln addition, federal, state, and localgovernments
provide tools and assistance for brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment, including
technical assistance, low-interest loans, liability protection, tax incentives, and streamlined government
oversight of cleanup.ls Many developers have used such assistance to transform former brownfields
into projectsthat make a profit and transform neighborhood liabilities into assets, benefitingthe
community and the environment as well.
ln Baltimore, developers remediated and redeveloped a 4.6-acre brownfield site that formerly housed a
coalyard and more recently was used as a parking lot (Exhibit 3). ln its place, they constructed a LEED@-
certified mixed-use development with 275 apartments and l-4,000 square feet of retail. The project was
a success for both the developer and the neighborhood. The apartments were fully leased within 1,L
months of construction, and two years after the project's 2010 opening, 5182 million in new
13 Howland, Marie. "ls Contamination the Barrier to lnner-City lndustrial Revitalization?" ln Recycling the City: The tJse ond
Reuse of Urbon Lond,by Rosalind Greenstein and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz. Lincoln lnstitute of Land Policy, pp. 89-109. 2004.
'o lsakson, Hans, and Mark Ecker. "The Effect of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on the Values of Nearby Homes."
University of Northern lowa. 2010. http://facultv.cns.uni.edu/-ecker/research.html.
1s Wernstedt, Kris, Peter B. Meyer, and Kristen R. Yount. "lnsuring Redevelopment at Contaminated Urban Properties." Public
Works Management & Policy 8.2 (2003): 85-98.
'u rbid.
17 Rice, Emily. Reuse: Creoting Community-Based Brownfields Redevelopment Strotegies. American Planning Association. 2010.
http://www. pla n n ine. o relresea rch/brownfield s.
18 For information about funding sources for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, and environmental job training,
see: EPA. "Brownfields and Land Revitalization Grants & Funding." http://www.epa.eov/brownfields/srant info/index.htm.
5
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
Exhibit 3. The Fitzgerald in Baltimore. This $77 million infill project in midtown Baltimore was constructed
under a public-private partnership that benefits the developer as well as the University of Baltimore and the city
itself. The proiect was financially successful, catalyzed. development in an area that had suffered from
disinvestment, and provided much-needed building space for the university.
Photo source: The Bozzuto Group
development had begun in the vicinity in an area that had seen little new construction for decades
prior.ls
C. Capital Costs
lnfill development can require a higher upfront capital investment that can be a barrier for developers
Potentially higher costs are associated with:
Demolition. Many infill projects require demolition of existing structures before new
construction can occur.
Design. lnfill development is built to be seen from the sidewalk, at a closer range and slower
pace, so buyers and tenants often expect more expensive design, fagades, and finishesthan are
used in projects set backfrom the road in areas with little pedestrian activity.20
Construction. lnfill development, frequently consisting of multistory buildings on smaller lots, is
more expensive to construct than the one- or two-story wood-frame construction more typical
of development in outlying areas. Buildings over four stories tall require steel or reinforced
concrete construction systems, which are significantly more expensive than wood framing.2l
" Bady, Susan. "The Upside of lnfill Developm ent." The Wal/. B&A Architecture. November LL,201,2.
http://baarch itectu re.com /wall/?p=2 3.
'oLeinberger,Christopher,andSarahKavage. BorrierstoDevelopingWalkobtelJrbanismondPossibteSolutions.TheBrookings
lnstitution.2007. http://chrisleinberser.com/docs/Bv CLlBrookinss Barriers 05302007.pdf.
" Leinberger and Kavage 2007, op. cit.
a
a
a
6
t-
(1
,-.i}
I
a
. a. -.- L3.u-'t
llr
a ltltt
!r
r. II Irt
' !i.
S. ^-,5
t
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
These higher upfront costs mean that infill projects often have lower internal rates of return22 than
other types of development in the first years after construction. However, infill housing that is
integrated into the existing urban fabric can command a price premium over development that involves
creating a large number of units on contiguous parcels with newly designed roads, parking, and open
space.23 ln addition, infill projects typically achieve higher returns over longer investment periods
compared to projects in previously undeveloped areas because of higher rent and sale prices.2a
Developers can thus recoup their higher upfront investment by holding on to properties for a longer
time before selling. ln infill neighborhoods, additional development-which is often spurred by even a
single successful project-contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and adds amenities that make
the area more appealingto live and work. Given the right conditions, a single catalytic project can lead
to a neighborhood revitalization that raises the value of all properties in the area.
Many municipalities are helping infill developers pay for infrastructure costs, recognizing that doing so
can help catalyze redevelopment. Costs for necessary infrastructure upgrades, such as an expanded
water main to support new residential development, might otherwise fall entirely on the first
redevelopment project in an area, creating a disincentive for any developer to act first. For example, in
California, with the consent of two-thirds of the district's voters, a municipality can establish a
community facilities district in which a specialtax on all properties in the district can be used to finance
infrastructure improvements. Developers can then keep the cost of infrastructure improvements off
their balance sheet so it does not interfere with their ability to finance construction or acquire long-term
debt for the project. ln 1991, 1992, and 2008, Contra Costa County, California, established three
separate community facilities districts to finance infrastructure around the Pleasant Hills Bay Area Rapid
Transit Station, helping to launch the area's transformation into the walkable community it is today.2s
D. Financing
Financing challenges are tied to the level of risk associated with infill projects. lnvestors can perceive
mixed-use projects to be inherently risky primarily because of their complexity. This complexity means
each project is unique, developers must be more skilled, and predicting demand is more challenging.26
ln addition, phasing and financing need to match market cycles, but the markets for residential,
commercial, and retail do not necessarily move together. lnvestors frequently finance one use at a time,
and mixed-use projects therefore often require multiple financing sources."
22 The internal rate of return is the interest rate at which the net present value of costs equals the net present value of
revenues. lnvestors require a higher rate of return for projects that carry higher levels of risk.
" Ryan, Brent D., and Rachel Weber. "Valuing New Development in Distressed Urban Neighborhoods: Does Design Matter?"
Journol of the Americon Plonning Association 73.! (2007): 100-111.
'oLeinberger,Christopher. BocktotheFuture:TheNeedforPotientEquityinReol EstoteDevelopmentFinonce.FheBrookings
lnstitution.2007. http://www.brookinss.edu/research/reports/2007/01/01cities-leinberser.
"Schildt, Chris.StrategiesforFiscollySustainoblelnfitt Housing.Universityof California,Berkeley,CenterforCommunity
lnnovation.2011. htto://communitvinnovation.berkelev.edu/reports/Fiscallv-sustainable-lnfill,pdf.
26Gyourko, Joseph and Witold Rybczynski. "Financing New Urbanism Projects: Obstacles and Solutions." Housinq policy Debote.
11.3 (2000): 733-7so.
" Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000, op. clt.
l
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
Another challenge of financing infill development is that financial models used by banks can act as a
barrier to securing capital investment. Most models assume that higher-income communities can better
support new development. lnfill development in cities and oldersuburbs that have experienced neglect
and disinvestment can thus be more difficult to finance.2s Such areas are often more likely to have
brownfield sites, which can face additionalfinancing challenges. For brownfield sites, lenders can have
higher underwriting costs associated with evaluating site conditions,2s require higher rates of return,30
require developers to contribute more equity," and be reluctant to accept the underlying realestate as
collateral.32 However, brownfield sites are also eligible for a host of local, state, and federal assistance
programs, which can close the financing gap and make redevelopment a financially viable proposition.
Despite these challenges, many developers have successfullyfinanced infill projects on brownfields and
other sites. Although investors might perceive the risk of infill development to be high, many developers
with experience working on infill projects believe that no real risk premium exists relative to comparable
mixed-use projects in undeveloped areas.33 As more developers and lenders become involved with infill
projects, perceptions are likely to better match reality. To that end, several specialized firms have
opened to serve developers that need help with financing for mixed-use developments.3a
For new infill developers in particular, smaller projects valued at less than S10 million can present
opportunities to enter the infill market because there is much less competition from developers funded
by institutional investors.3t However, even institutional investors are entering the infill market and
making it easier for developers to finance projects. For example, in late 2O!2, one financial services firm
created a new division to provide acquisition, development, and construction loans for infill projects
valued between 53 mllllon and S35 million that are located near employment centers." Many real
estate investment funds and trusts are also focusing on infill markets for investment of their large pools
of capital.3T
E. Regulatory Approval Process
lnfill development can be challenging in cities with regulations that separate land uses and have
requirements for parking and street width that were developed for spread-out suburban areas rather
28 Burchell, Robert and David Listokin. Linking Vision with Capitol: Chotlenges ond Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth.
Research lnstitute for Housing America. 2001,
http://www. housinea merica.orelPublications/LinkinsVisionWithCaoita l:Cha llengesandOpportu n itiesin Fina ncingsmartGrowth. htm.
2s Bartsch, Charles. "Financing Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment." Government Finonce Review !8.! (2002): 26-31.
'o tbid.
" Simons, Robert A. and Donald T. lannone. "Brownfields Supply and Demand." lJrbon Land.56.6 (1997): 36-38.
" rbid.
33 Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000, op. cit.v Minadeo, Dominic F. Price Premiums ond Mixed-lJse Development. NAIOP Research Foundation. 2009.
http://www. naiop. orslen/Resea rchlOur- Research/Repo rts/M ixed-U se- Price- Prem iu ms.asox.
" Kessler, Kristina. "Small & Smart." Urbon Land. February 20L1. http://urbanland.uli.orelArticles/2011/Jan/KesslerSmall.
36 Caulfield, John. "A New Capital Source for lnfill Projects Breaks onto the West Coast Scene." Buitder Mogozine. September 20,
2012. http://www.builderonline.com/lenders/a-new-capital-source-for-infill-proiects-breaks-onto-the-west-coast-scene.aspx.t' Stoler, Michael. "RElTs Pouring lnvestment lnto Dense Urban Corners. " The New York Sun. May 31,2007.
http://www. nvsun. com/rea l-estate/reits-po u ri nq-i nvestm ent-i nto-dense-urban-corners/55 560/.
8
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
than city and town neighborhoods. Developers must get approval to deviate from zoning codes, a
process that can be lengthy and add uncertainty and cost to the development process.
However, while regulatory constraints once were a major impediment, many cities are changing their
policies to better attract and accommodate infill development. For example, many cities have
designated particular areas for higher-density, mixed-use development,38 and some have adopted form-
based codes,3e which allow mixed-use development, in place of conventional zoning, which mandates
the separation of land uses. ln some cities, transportation policy encourages "complete streets," street
design that accommodates all users, helping to create walkable, bikeable communities where infill
development can be most successful.ao Even developers working in areas that have not adapted their
zoning and approval processes to support mixed-use and walkable infill development can usually find
examples of successful projects in these places that can help generate community support that will
ultimately ease the regulatory process.
Exhibit 4. Regulatory Structure Case Study
Lowry, one of Denver's first completed mixed-use, walkable
planned communities, opened in 1998. The 1,866-acre site
was decommissioned as an Air Force base in L994 and was
redeveloped to include over 4,500 homes, L.B million square
feet of office space, 130,000 square feet of retail space, and
over 800 acres of parks and open space. Throughout the
1990s, as the project was being planned and developed, the
Lowry Redevelopment Authority encountered multiple
regulatory challenges: "The underlying zoning for the base
property was open space, so most ofthe property had to be
rezoned and replatted. This resulted in complicated
discussions with Denver's public works, fire, and other
departments over street and alley widths and other
infrastructure requirements." Hundreds of public meetings
were held. Considerable public outreach was needed because
the lack of regulatory clarity for the developers created
uncertainty among residents about how the site could and
would be developed. Lowry paved the way for future mixed-
use projects in Denver. At least 10 large, mixed-use
communities have been built in the Denver area since Lowry,
all ofwhich benefitted from the regulatory reforms spurred by
the projects that proceeded.
Source: Stern, f ulie. "Lowry." ULI Development Cose.Studies. Urban
Land Institute. 2006.
Denver is one city that has gradually
modified its regulatory environment to
encourage infill. Many of the challenges
facing smart growth development across
the country do not exist anymore in
Denver-the city rewrote its zoning codes to
enable mixed-use neighborhoods, local
developers have the technical and
managerial skills to execute complex
projects, local banks have a better
understanding of the product mix and
potential returns, and retailers have
adapted their formats to better fit the form-
based code requirements.4l Exhibit 4
describes one of the first projects spurred by
these kinds of changes.
Other cities have undergone similar
transformations. ln some cases, one new
mixed-use project can set precedents that
permanently a lter tra nsportation agency
38 Minadeo 2009, op. cit.
3e Form-based codes use "physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code." They "address
the relationship between building fagades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and
the scale and types of streets and blocks." Source: Form-Based Codes lnstitute. "What Are Form-Based Codes?"
h.ttp://www.fo rm basedcodes. orslwhat-a re-fo rm-based-codes. Accessed october 2, 20t2.
a0 National Complete Streets Coalition. "Policy Atlas." http://www.smarterowthamerica.orglcomplete-streets/chanslns-
policv/complete-streets-atlas. Accessed August 1, 201.3.o'Stern, Julie. "Lowry." ULI Development Cose Studies. Urban Land lnstitute. 200G.
9
Opportunities and Challenges of lnfill Development
requirements, zoning policy, or other regulatory barriers that had stood in the way of infill development
ln Los Angeles, the city enacted a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance, which allows the construction of
multiple single-family homes on just one lot zoned for multifamily use. Local developers have used the
ordinance to build innovative and
distinctive new communities that meet the
needs and the budgets of first-time
homebuyers. Financing is generally easier
for both developers and buyers because
each unit comes with a plot of land.a2 The
Maltman Bungalows, originally built in the
L920s, are one of the best examples of
detached bungalow courts from that era
remaining in Los Angeles (Exhibit 5). lf not
for the ordinance, the buildings probably
would have been torn down. The developer
instead transformed the 17 rental units into
single-family homes for purchase, creating
the city's first small-lot subdivision project
to come to market.a3 Small-lot projects in
Los Angeles have been selling well, and
developers expect to break ground on 250
additional units by the end of 2OL4.aa
Exhibit 5. The Maltman Bungalows in Los Angeles. The
redevelopers ofthe 1920s-era buildings recognized their
historic value and the opportunity to fill a need for small-scale,
detached, single-family homes in the city.
Photo source: Civic Enterprise Development
ln 20L0, San Antonio, Texas, adopted an lnner-City Reinvestment/lnfill Policy that promotes growth and
development in targeted infill areas. Among the incentives provided to developers is the establishment
of a single point of contact in the city government for each new development project who can help
facilitate the permitting process, property tax abatements, and city fee waivers.as As of 2013, the city
had provided almost S:S mlllion in incentives, and almost 2,500 housing units had been created through
the program.
Communities are working to remove barriers to infill development and making it easier for more
developers to enter the market. Communities are driven to make these changes by many factors,
including environmental sustainability, fiscal prudence, and changing demographics and market
preferences. These trends are also driving developersto pursue more infill opportunities to better meet
demand, as discussed in Section lll.
o' Khouri, Andrew. "ln Urban 1.A., Developers are Building Trendy Homes on Tiny Lots." Los Angeles Times. July 13, 2013.
http://www.latim es.com/business/rea lestate/la-fi-small-lot-homes-20130714.0,563473. storv.
a3 Hawthorne, Christopher. "Fledgling L.A. Ordinance Revives an Old ldea: The Small House in the City." Los Angeles Times. June
5,2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-hm-small5-2008iun05.0.5403750.storv.a Khouri 2013, op. cit.
ot City of San Antonio. tnner-Gty Reinvestment/tnfill Poticy.20tO.
http://www.sa na ntonio.eov/pla n ning/com m Reinvestment/lCR lP. asox.
10
,.&f,gfl
I li\'
{
t
**lE
,7
III. Increasing Demand for Infill Development
Demographic, social, and economic trends shape the way people live and, by extension, their demand
for real estate. Severaltrends suggest a sustained increase in demand for infill development and an
opportunity for developers in many markets. This section reviews these long-term shifts and their
potential impacts on residential and office development.
A. Residential Development
Household preferences are changing.ln 2004,1.3 percent of respondents to a national survey indicated
that they would like to live in a city.a6 When the same survey was repeated in 2011, that figure had
increased to 19 percent.4T A different 2011 survey of people who recently shopped for or bought a new
home found that almost half wanted to live closer to work and a downtown area and would accept a
smaller yard in exchange for parks and other public amenities, while two-thirds wanted a community with
sidewalks that ted to public spaces like parks and cafes.a8 Consumer preferences for the amenities that
infill locations offer are likely to grow as changing demographics affect the housing market. ln the next 20
years, the needs and preferences of aging baby boomers, new households, and one-person households
will drive real estate market trends-and infill locations are likely to attract many of these people.ae
Baby Boomers' Needs Are Changing
The first wave of baby boomers reached age 55 in 2011.s0 This generation makes up more than one-
quarter of the U.S. population and will continue to shape both society and realestate demand in the
coming decades. Baby boomers are the first suburban generation, and many desire to age in place in the
suburban communities where they currently live.sl However, many of these communities were built for
young families and no longer meet the needs of older people whose children are grown and who cannot
or choose not to drive or maintain a large home with a yard.
Market demand is expected to grow for both rentaland for-purchase homes that better match the
needs of empty-nesters and retirees. The president of the American Seniors Housing Association said of
people between the ages of 55 and 75, "They want to stay connected to the community. They want to
volunteer, and they definitely find urban settings to be appealing."t' An analysis of 50 large cities
ot Belden Russonello & Stewart. "2004 National Community Preference Survey." Smart Growth America and National
Association of Realtors. October 2004. http://www.smarterowthamerica.orqldocuments/NAR-SGASurvev.odf.
ou Belden Russonello & Stewart. "The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans are Looking for When Deciding
Where to Live." National Association of Realtors. March 2011. http://www.realtor.orslreports/2011-communitv-preference-
survev.
a8 Warrick, Brooke. "Builder Home Buyer Study 2011." Builder Mogozine.2Oll.
http://www.builderonline.com/lmaqes/Builder20ll.HomeBuverStudv tcmL0-882121.pdf.o'Doherty, Patrick C. and Christopher B. Leinberger. "The Next Real Estate Boom." Woshington Monthty. November/December
2O10. http://www.washinetonmonthlv.com/features/20L0/1011.dohertv-leinbereer.html.
to The U.S. Census Bureau classifies the 76 million people born in the United States between 1946 and 1964 as the baby boom
generation.
s1 Berube, Alan et al. Stote oI Metropolitan Americo: On the Front Lines of Demographic Tronsformotion. The Brookings
lnstitution Metropolitan Policy Program.2010. http://www.brookines.edu/research/reports/2010/05/09-metro-america.
s2 Leiserowitz, Nila R. and Michael Hanley. "The City is the New Senior Center." Fost Compony.July 10, 20L3.
htto://www.fastcoexist.com / 1682 539/the-citv-is-the-new-se nior-center.
1.1.
lncreasing Demand for lnfill Development
showed that between 2000 and 2010, the baby boomer population in areas 40 to 80 miles from these
cities declined by more than 1 million, while it increased by a similar number in areas within 5 miles of a
city center.s3'to New infill projects for seniors are being built across the country for all segments of the
market-from Los Angeles apartments for low-income seniors seeking to remain in their neighborhood
as rents rise to luxury high-rises in Chicago for seniors who want to be close to the city's cultural
assets. tt
Millennials i\re Forming New Households
With the turn of the century, the first millennials entered their twenties (Exhibit 6), and many sought
their own home for the first time. As of 20L2, this generation comprises the largest segment of the
rental housing market.s6 With over 80 million people born between 1978 and 1995, this age group is
larger than the baby boom generation. lt will continue to grow with new immigrants because most
arrive as young adults, and it will eventually become the largest buying and renting cohort.sT
Consumer research indicates that nearly two-thirds of millennials want to live in a walkable
community.s8 Data confirm
that younger people are
biking, walking, and taking
public transit more often
than in past years, even
those who are relatively
well off financially.se At the
same time, younger people
are driving less. The
average annual number of
vehicle miles traveled has
declined across all age
groups from 2001 to 2009,
and the most pronounced
46
4.4
42o
E oo
> 38
36
3.4
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20122013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Exhibit 6. Population Turning 22, United States, 2000-20l7.Theyear 2012
marks the peak year of millennials entering the real estate market with
approximately 4.5 million people turning 22, the age by which most young adults
have entered the full-time worKorce and begin looking for new homes.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
s3 Keates, Nancy. "Hip, Urban, Middle-Aged." August 13, 2013. The Watl Street Journol.
http://online.wsi.com/article/S81.0001424127887324136204578644080452044960.htm1#printMode.* Bahrampour, Tara. "With the Kids Gone, Aging Baby Boomers Opt for City Life." August 5, 2013.
http://www.washineton post.com/loca l/the-kids-eone-aeins-ba bv-boomers-o pt-for-citv-life/2013/08/05/1a21c1b2-fba7- 11. e2-
a369-d1954abcb7e3 storv.html.
ss Leiserowitz 2013, op. cit.
s5 According to American Community Survey 201.2 data,36% of renters in the United States are between the ages of 15 to 34
years old, which closely correlates to the Millennial generation. No other market segment represents as large of a share of the
rental market. Renters ages 35 to 44 represent 21% of total renters, renters ages 45 to 64 represent 30% of total renters, and
renters ages 55 to 84 represent 10% oftotal renters; the remainder ofthe renters are over 85 years old.s'Lachman,LeanneandDeborahL.Brett. GenerotionY:Americo'sNewHousingWove.lJrbanlandlnstitute.2Oll..
http://www.orea.orglresearch/201 L0510-GenY-Report Final. pdf.
s8 Lachman and Brett 2011, op. cit.
se Davis, Benjamin, Tony Dutzik, and Phineas Baxandall. Tronsportotion ond the New Generotion: Why Young People ore Driving
Less ond Whot it Meons lor Tronsportotion Policy. Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG Education Fund. 2012.
htto://www. uspire. o rq/reports/u sp/tra n sportation-a nd-new-qen eratio n.
1.2
lncreasing Demand for lnfill Development
decline (23 percent) was among 16- to 34-year-olds.50 These millennial preferences and habits will help
drive demand in the coming decades for infill development, especially if it is transit oriented.
The Number of Single-Person Households Grows
Single-person households are the nation's second most common household type, accountingfor 27
percent of all households in 2010, up from 8 percent in 1.940,61 and they account for about 35 percent of
consumer spending in the United States.62 ln cities such as Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, the
percentage of single-person households is as high as44 percent.63 People aged 65 and olderarethe
largest share of single-person households (almost 45 percent), but more than 15 percent of all age
groups live alone.e
Single people tend to prefer new homes with modern kitchens and baths when they buy (61 percent
versus 51 percent of couples), and are more likely to consider a townhome (29 percent versus 12 percent
of couples with children).t5 Many people living alone are attracted to places with a sense of community
among neighbors, that are close to city centers, and that allow walking to work, restaurants, and other
destinations.uu New infill construction can offer single people the location and amenities they seek.
B. Office Development
As more people choose to live in infill neighborhoods, employers are following, and vice versa. Demand
for infill locations among employers seeking office space is expected to increase as cities provide more
transportation options and continue adding amenities to downtown while improving schools and
housing options.6T
The move of Class A68 tenants from suburban office parks to central neighborhoods is playing out across
the country in all industries and is driving up the values of downtown office markets nationally. A2012
study of Class A office markets in central business districts of 25 cities found that demand in the central
business district is growing at a faster rate than the overall Class A market.6e ln Chicago, office vacancy
'tbid.6i Lofquist, Daphne, Terry Lugaila, Martin O'Connell, and Sarah Feliz. "Households and Families: 2010." 2010 Census Briefs. U.S.
Census Bureau.2012. http://www.census.eovlorod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf.t'Allyn, Bobby. "More Singles Living Alone and Loving it, Despite the Economy." USA Today. May 2,2012.
http://usatodav30. usatodav. com/news/nation/storv/2012-05-02/l ivine-alone/54585 1 14l1.t' Wile, Rob. "This Southern City has the Most Single-Person Households in America." Business lnsider. April26, 20t2.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/20L2-04-26/markets/3L407686 l new-era-cities-households.* U.S. Censrs Bureau. "Percentage Single-Person Households by Age of Householder: 2010." Current Populotion Survey, Annuol
Sociol ond EconomicSupplements. 2010. htto://www.census.eov/newsroom/pdf/cah slides o7.odf.
" Thorpson, Boyce. "survey llluminates Preference of Single Buyers of New Homes." Builder Mogozine. November 22,20t0.
http://www. builderon line. com/demogra ohics/su rvev-illu m inates-sinqle-buver-preferences. aspx.* rbid.
67 Livingston, George a nd Ch ristie Alexander. "Trends Affecting Busi ness Parks Today." Site Setection. Novem ber 2010.
htto://www.siteselection.com/issues/201-0/nov/SAS-Top-Locations. cf m.
a The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) lnternational defines Class A office space as the "most prestigious
buildings competing for premier office users with rents above average for the area. Buildings have high quality standard
finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence." Source: Boma lnternational.
"Building Class Definitions." htto://www.boma.ors/research/Paees/buildine-class-definitions.aspx. Accessed August 2L, 2013.u'Jones Lang LaSalle. North Americo Skyline Review.2012. http://www.ioneslanelasalle.eu/EMEA/EN-
GB/Pases/Research Details.asox?ltem I D=7960.
1,3
lncreasing Demand for lnfill Development
rates in July 2012 were 15 percent downtown compared to 24 percent in the suburbs.T0 Tenant demand
for infill locations drove investors and developers to core infill markets as the economy started
improving after the low point of 2OO7-2008, and infill remains a top choice for investors, even as
markets outside of downtown areas start to improve as well.71
Many corporations are moving to infill locations in part because they recognize the competitive
advantages of being closer to the central city where people and businesses are most concentrated.T2
Examples of companies choosing to move from suburban office parks to more walkable downtown sites
are numerous. Sears Holding Corporation moved its headquarters 20 years ago from the downtown
Chicago tower bearing its name to a suburb 30 miles northwest of the city. ln 2008, the company moved
its e-commerce division back to downtown and now has over 500 employees inside Chicago's Loop.73
Accenture PLC moved its headquarters from Reston Town Center in Virginia to a transit-accessible office
in Arlington, Virginia, much closer to downtown Washington,D.C.la Technology companies of all sizes
are moving into cities. San Francisco has become a hub for small, young internet companies, including
Trulia, Twitter, Yelp, Zynga, Craigslist, Airbnb, Dropbox, and more." When Google opened its New York
office in 2006, it did so in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. Amazon.com, lnc., purchased its l,l,-
building South Lake Union headquarters complex in downtown Seattle in 2012.76
Office space developed on infill sites is typically smaller than suburban office space due to site
constraints and smaller land parcels. These smaller office spaces can be better suited to contemporary
office needs, as companies expand hotelingTT and telecommuting and switch to an open office layout,
allowing companies to lease fewer square feet per employee. Companies that are leadlng the trend of
reduced space per employee include LivingSocial, which has minimized overhead costs by limiting space
per employee to as little as 80 to 100 square feet.78 Panasonic's U.S. headquarters is reducing its facility
size by 50 percent without losing any employees, and the U.S. General Services Administration is
reducing the square footage per employee for federal buildings.Te
'o Ori, Ryan. "Vacancy Dips in Suburban Offices." ChicogoReotEstoteDoily.com July 9, 2012.
htto://www.ch icaeorea lestatedai lv. com/a rticle/201"20709/CRE D02l1 20709877/vaca ncv-d i ps-i n-su b urba n-offices.
" WolffSorter, Amy. "ls lnfill Tapped Out?" Reol Estote Forum. May 2013. http://www.reforum-
dieital.com/reforum/201305#pe70.
72 For a discussion of the economic advantages for business of choosing to locate in central business districts, see EPA. Smort
Growth ond Economic Success: The Business Cose.2013. http://www.epa.govldced/economic success.htm.
"Ori,Ryan."searsBoostsOfficeSpaceonStateStreet." ChicogoReatEstateDoity.Crain'sChicagoBusiness. June27,2OI2.
http://www. ch icaqorea lestatedai lv. com/a rticle/20120627/CR E D03/120629823/sea rs-boosts-office-space-on-state-street.
'o "Accenture Signs Ballston Lease with JBG." Woshington Business lournol. Septemb er 1,3, 2O'J,7.
http://www. bizio urna ls.com/washineton/news/201U09/13/accentu re-sien s-ballston-lease-with -ibe. htm l.
7s "something in the Air: Why Birds of a Tech Feather Flock Together. " The Economist. October 27 , 2012.
http://www. econo m ist. com/news/specia l-report/21565001.-whv-bird s-tech-feathe r-flock-toeether-so meth ing-air?fsrc=rss I spr,
" Pryne, Eric and Amy Martinez. "Amazon Gobbles up Campus for S1 Billion." The Seottte limes. October 5,2012.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnologv/2019355557 amazonvulcan06.html.
" Hoteling refers to employers providing temporary office space to employees as needed rather than having a dedicated spot
for each individual.
" Yoder, Steve. "Office Space: The lncredible Shrinking Work place." The Fiscol Times. April lt, 20L2.
la
Medici, Andy. "lndividual Work Spaces Shrink 20% or More." Federol Times. October 2,20L!
http://www.federa ltimes.com/article/20111002/FAClLlTlES02/110020307/lndivid ual-work-spaces-sh rin k-20-more.
1.4
IV. Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development
The trends described in Section lll, including demographic shifts and growing preference for walkable
locations, give developers economic incentives to find solutions to the potential barriers to infill
mentioned in Section ll. This section discusses how the benefits of reduced infrastructure costs and
better economic returns associated with infill development are motivating developers to overcome the
barriers that have stymied infill projects in the past.
A. Reduced Infiastructure Costs
Development often requires access to public sewerage and water systems, as well as other utilities,
streets and other transportation facilities, schools, and parks. Developers often must pay for the
infrastructure that will serve their development projects, either directly or in the form of impact fees to
the localgovernment that will provide services.80 Since infill locations already have much of the needed
infrastructure, unless extraordinary capital improvements are required, infrastructure costs can be
substantially lower for infill development relative to a similar project in an undeveloped area. One
analysis of potential cost savings from smart growth development estimated that developers and new
building occupants could save close to SZOO blllion over 25 years (2000-2025) due to the need for less
infrastructure if the projected 25 million new housing units built during this time followed smart growth
principles.8l
Many cities reflect these cost differences in the impact fees they charge new development. The city of
Sacramento, California, analyzed impact fees for identical development projects in infill and
undeveloped areas. lmpact fees for residential development on undeveloped sites were twice as high as
for infill, and for commercial development, impact fees on undeveloped sites were 10 times those for
infill.82 Since 2002, the Sacramento RegionalCounty Sanitation District in California has charged lower
conveyance fees for projects in areas that are at least 70 percent built-out.83 Atlanta has reduced road
impact fees by 50 percent for projects located within half a mile of a transit station, while Loveland,
Colorado, reduced these fees by 25 percent for projects meeting mixed-use criteria.8a
Another source of potential cost savings for infill developments located near transit is the reduced need
for parking because residents and employees can get around without a car. One study found that the
number of car trips taken by residents of transit-oriented development projects was almost half that
predicted by the lnstitute of Traffic Engineers manual, leading to creation of unneeded parking spaces in
m As of January 21,20t2, the following 28 states have adopted legislation that allows local governments to assess impact fees:
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, ldaho, lllinois, lndiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode lsland, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
81 Burchell and Listokin 2001, op. cit.
82 Parrington, Desmond. "lmpact Fees and Smart Growth in Sacramento." 2OO7 Presentation at National lmpact Fee
Roundtable. October 11,, 2007.
Mullen, Clancy. "lmpact Fees and Growth Management." Presented at the National Conference of the American Planning
Association in Chicago, lL, April 14, 2002. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/erowth manaeement.pdf.* lbid.
15
I
I
Exhibit 7. La Valentina in Sacramento, California. This infill
development along a light-rail line transformed a contaminated lot
that had sat vacant for 20 years into a mixed-use, affordable housing
projecl The developer's long entitlement process for this proiect
prompted the city to initiate an update of its zoning code in 201.3.
Photo source: Bruce Damonte
Economic lncentives Driving lnfill Development
these projects. ln a case study of a
mid-rise project, a 50 percent
reduction in parking would reduce
capital costs for parking by 25 percent
and allow 20 percent more residential
units on the site.ss
Many developers can thus recoup
some of the additional capital costs
required for infill development due to
lower infrastructure costs. Also
contributing to developers' ability to
earn a profit from infill development
in spite of potentially higher capital
costs is the ability to charge higher
rent or sale prices and to retain value
better during economic downturns, as
discussed in the next section.
B. Better Economic Returns
ln the economic downturn that began in 2007 , infill development retained its value better than
development in outlying areas in many regions. An analysis of home price values for over 30,000 zip
codes across 259 metropolitan regions found that for communities within 75 miles of a central business
district, the greater the distance from that central business district, the greater the decline in home
values during the housing market collapse and the less home values had recovered as of summer
2OLL.86 An analysis of home prices in the Washington, D.C., region showed similar results.8T Likewise, in
California, those zip codes where home prices declined the least between 2007 and 20L0 were on
average 74 percent closer to a major city than those that fared the worst.88
An analysis of home price changes between May 2012 and May 2013 found that urban neighborhoods
outperformed suburban neighborhoods in 16 out of 20 metropolitan areas. Overall, the price per square
foot in neighborhoods dominated bytownhouses and multi-unit buildings increased 11,.3 percent versus
10.2 percent in neighborhoods dominated by single-family detached houses. The largest differences
8s Arrin$on, G. B., and Robert Cervero. "TCRP Report L28: Effects ofTOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel." Tronsportotion
Reseorch Boord of the Nationol Acodemies. 2008. http://trid.trb.orslview.aspx?id=870956.
86 Sexton, Steven E., JunJie Wu, and David Zilberman. "How High Gas Prices Triggered the Housing Crisis: Theory and Empirical
Evidence." The Selected Works ofSteven E. Sexton. 2012. http://works.beoress.com/sexton/29.
87 Benfield, Kaid. "New DC Data Confirm Real Estate Recovery Strongest in Central & Transit-served Locations." Switchboard:
Notionol Resources Defense Council Stall Blog. March 26,2013.
htto://switchboard.nrdc.orglbloss/kbenfield/new dc data confirm real estat.html.t'Se*ton, Wu, and Zilberman 20L2, op. cit.
16
qrF
.a
I
rl iI
I
a a..I
_l
1
It. r:rn :,*
Economic lncentives Driving lnfill Development
werefound in Detroit (28.8 percentversus 22 percent), Phoenix (2T.2percentversus 22.1 percent), and
Miami (18.1 percent versus 1,3.1 percent).8e
Office values are showing the same trends. As recovery from the 2007 economic downturn continues,
vacancy rates are starting to fall in cities while staying flat in suburbs. Office values in central business
districts have risen about 65 percent from their 2009 low, whereas suburban office values have stayed
relatively flat after falling more than 42 percent from their peak.e0'e1 Offlce space in mixed-use, infill
developments can command rent premiums in a variety of markets. For example, in Nashville,
Tennessee, office space in mixed-use developments earns 5 to 10 percent more per square foot than in
single-use developments.e2
lnfill sites are usually more walkable than other areas because many older parts of cities were built
when most people moved around by foot, and many destinations are within easy reach. Research has
shown that higher levels of walkability are correlated with better realestate performance for both
commercial and residential properties. One scientifically validated measure of a location's walkability is
Walk Score@, which measures the number of amenities within walking distance of an address, with
scores ranging from 0 (car dependent) to 1OO (most walkabl").t'''o An analysis of more than 4,200
properties across the United States found that for office, retail, and apartment properties, higher Walk
Scores are associated with higher property values.es An office or retail property with a Walk Score of 80
has a market value 54 percent more per square foot than a comparable property with a Walk Score of
20, while an apartment property is worth 5 percent more. A coarse analysis covering 259 cities that
considered city-level Walk Scores and regional information on median household income,
unemployment, and cost of living found that a 1-0-point increase in Walk Score is associated with a
5 percent increase in housing prices.e6
Research within particular regions has replicated these results. For example, a study of six communities
in the Rocky Mountain West that represent the diversity of communities in the region found that before
the economic downturn that began in 2007, home buyers paid 18.5 percent more per square foot to live
in a compact, walkable community. Between 2OO7 and 201L, as the housing market declined and then
began to recover, compact, walkable communities retained a price premium of 12.5 percent even as
tt Kolko, Jed. "Home Prices Rising Faster in Cities than in the Suburbs - Most of All in Gayborhoods ." trulia trends. June 25,
2013. http://trends.truliabloe.com/2013/06/home-orices-risine-faster-in-cities/. The 20 metropolitan areas studied are those
for which there is an S&P/Case-Schiller Home Price lndex that tracks changes in the value of residential real estate.
no Bro*n, Eliot. "Pain Prolonged in Suburban Office Market." Woll Street lournol. July 13,2011.
"Philipp,Tad,KevinFagan,andNickLevidy. Boston,NewYorkTopMojorMetrosOverLostL2Months.Moody'slnvestors
Service. 2012.
e2 Minadeo 2009, op. cit.t'Drn."n, Dustin T., Jared Aldstadt, John Whalen, Steven J. Melly, and Steven L. Gortmaker. "Validation of Walk Scoreo for
Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An analysis of Four U.S. Metropolitan areas." Internotionol Journal of Environmentol
Reseorch ond Public Heolth 8.LL {2011],: 4t60-4179.q
Carr, Lucas J., Shira l. Dunsiger, and Bess H. Marcus. "Validation of Walk Score for Estimating Access to Walkable Amenities."
British lournol of Sports Medicine 45.14 (20ttl: tt44-t148.
es Pivo, Gary and Jeffrey D. Fischer. 'The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate lnvestments." Reol Estate Economics.
99.2 (2010): L95-2L9.
e6 Washington, Emily. "Role of Walkability in Driving Home Values." Leodership and Manogement in Engineering 13.3 (2013):
L23-130.
17
Economic lncentives Driving lnfill Development
housing prices declined overall.eT A study of 94,000 home sales across the United States found that in 13
of the 15 markets examined, increased walkability was associated with higher home values. On average,
every one-point increase in Walk Score was associated with a 5700 to 53,000 higher sales price.s8
Similarly, a study of residential land values in Jefferson County, Alabama, found that land values and
sales prices increase with walkability and declining car dependence, and the price premium holds over
time.ee
Many infill sites also have good access to transit, which also often increases land values. A study of land
values in Santa Clara County, California, found that retail and office properties within a quarter-mile of a
light-rail station were about 23 percent higherthan comparable properties farther away. For retail and
office properties in commercial business districts, the price premium for being within a quarter-mile of a
station was even greater-more than L20 percent.100 Residential properties showed similar results.101
For land zoned for multi-unit buildings, the value of properties within a quarter-mile of a light-rail
station was45 percent higherthan the mean propertyvalue in the countyand 28 percent higherthan
the value of all properties within 4 miles of a station. Proximity to a commuter rail station created price
premiums of around 20 percent for all types of residential properties. Properties with a balance of jobs
and employed residents and a mix of uses also showed price premiums over properties in single-use
neighborhoods.
Asimilarstudy in the San Diego region found that overall, both residentialand commercial properties
had higher values near rail transit stations.102 For example, the greatest price premiums of 91 percent
were found for commercial properties near downtown stations. However, for certain property types in
certain locations, properties near transit were discounted as much as 10 percent. Condominiums
showed price premiums when near transit in all locations, while single-family housing varied, and
commercial property showed premiums in major retail areas but discounts outside of these locations.
The development context and development type is thus important to consider, but available research
suggests that the hallmark features of many infill sites-walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods close to
transit stations-are ripe for developments that can benefit from and will ultimately enhance these
attributes.
t'Sonoran lnstitute. Reset: Assessing Future Housing Morkets in the Rocky Mountoin West.2013.
http://www.sonoraninstitute.orglcomponent/docman/doc details/1451-reset-assessine-future-housing-markets-in-the-rockv-
mountain-west-3 132013. html?ltemid=3.
e8 Cortright, Joe. Watking the Wotk: How Wolkabitity Roises Home Volues in U.S. Cities. CEOs for Cities. 2009.
http://www.ceosforcities.orslresearch/walkins-the-walk/.* Rauterkus, Stephanie Yates, and Norman G. Miller. "Residential land values and walkability." The lournol of Sustoinoble Reot
Estote 3.1 (2011): 23-43.
'oo Cerrero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Transit's Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial
Land Values." Tronsportotion Reseorch Record.7805.1, (2002): 8-15.
to'Cerrero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets: Experiences in Santa Clara County."
lournol of Public Tronsportotion 5.1 (2002): 1-18.to'Cerrero,Robert,andMichaelDuncan. LondVoluelmpoctsofRoitTransitServicesinSonDiegoCounty.Reportpreparedfor
National Association of Realtors Urban Land lnstitute. 2002.
http://www. recon nectinsa m erica. orelassets/U oloads/bestpractice03g. pdf.
18
V. Conclusion
The real and perceived challenges of infill development are diminishing. Although land assembly can
involve additional costs relative to development on undeveloped land, developers are building on
smaller lots or acquiring large brownfield properties that they can profitably clean up and redevelop,
and cities are developing innovative programs to address the issue. The risks involved in brownfields
redevelopment are often factored into sales prices and can be mitigated with insurance products,
allowing developers to reliably predict their costs. Higher upfront capital costs can be offset by higher
sales and rental prices, and developers willing to hold properties for longer periods can take advantage
of rising property values spurred by successful redevelopment projects. As infill becomes more
prevalent, more lenders are developing products and services to help overcome financing challenges
associated with mixed-use projects. Finally, cities eager to reap the environmental, economic, and social
benefits of infill development are changing regulations and policies to encourage and facilitate it.
Overall, developers are learning how to create profitable projects that meet a growing demand for
housing and offices in walkable neighborhoods neartransit, culturalattractions, restaurants, and other
amenities.
Demographic changes on the horizon-more seniors looking for homes that better meet their needs,
more millennials setting up new households, and more singles in all age categories-are likely to drive
demand for infill development. The coming years and decades will create opportunities for developers
able to meet this demand. Lower infrastructure costs and higher rent and sales prices for infill projects
will help make infill projects profitable for developers, supporting neighborhoods that are better for the
environment and improve quality of life.
19
r
10.3 Local Landmark Desiqnation of the Chacona Block at411-415 Colleoe
Avenue - Resolution
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the City of lthaca Municipal Code entitled
""Landmarks Preservation - Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or
new Construction Affecting lndividual Landmarks or Historic Districts", the lthaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) is responsible for recommending to
Common Council the designation of identified structures or resources as individual
landmarks and historic districts within the city; and
WHEREAS, on August 8,2017, the ILPC concluded a public hearing for the purpose of
considering a proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue as
a local landmark; and
WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type ll 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 1,2, 3,4, and 5 defining a
"Local Landmark" under Section 228-38 of the City of lthaca Municipal Code entitled "
Designation of lndividual Landmarks or Historic Districts" and on August 8,2017, voted
to recommend the designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue; and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the City of lthaca Municipal Code entitled
""Landmarks Preservation - Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration, Demolition, or
new Construction Affecting lndividual Landmarks or Historic Districts", the Planning
Board shall file a report with Common Council with respect to the relation of such
designation to the comprehensive 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 September 26, 2017, has
been reviewed by the Common Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the City of lthaca Municipal Code entitled "Lanrmarks
Preservation" states that the Council shall within ninety days of said recommendation of
designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to the ILPC for modification of same;
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council finds that the designation [is/is not] compatible
with and [will/will not] conflict with the comprehensive plan, existing zoning, projected
public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area involved; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue, [meets/does not
meetl criteria for local designation, as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows:
1 It possesses specia! character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of
the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or
nation; or
2. lt is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
It embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
ls the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or
Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by virtue
of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That Common Council [approves/disapproves] the designation of the
Chacona Block at411-415 College Avenue and the adjacent areas that are identified as
tax parcel #64.-2-1as a local landmark.
3.
4.
5.
TO:
FROM
RE:
DATE:
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.3
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street - 3rd Floor lthaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO. DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Development/IuRA - 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Ernail: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax:607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
Common Council and Svante Myrick, Mayor
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
Local Historic Designation of the Chacona Block at4ll-415 College Avenue
October 19,2017
At their regular monthly meeting on August 8, 2017, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) concluded a public hearing to consider the designation of the property
located at 411-41 5 College Avenue as an individual local landmark. Following the public
hearing, the ILPC voted to recommend that Common Council proceed with the designation of
this historic resource. Included in this packet are copies of the resolution adopted by the ILPC
and the nomination form documenting the historic and architectural significance of the Chacona
Block at 411-41 5 College Avenue.
Based on the information provided in the nomination. the ILPC found that the Chacona Block at
411-415 College Avenue is eligible for local designation based on criteria 1 ,2, 3, 4, and 5 as set
forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code. Per criterion l, the Chacona Block "possesses
special historical and aesthetic interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural
characteristics of the City of Ithaca" through its close association with the development and
growth of Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking housing in close proximity to Cornell
University, and for its role in the development of Collegetown as an urban neighborhood separate
from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct character. Per criterion 2, the Chacona Block "is
identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s)" through its association with the
Chacona family, the proprietors of a chain of successful confectionery and ice cream shops in
Ithaca and beyond in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. and John N. Chacona,
specifically. Per criterion 3, the Chacona Block "embodies the distinguishing characteristics of
an architectural style" as a highly intact commercial building constructed in the Renaissance-
Revival Style. Per criterion 4, the Chacona Block "is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age." The building was designed by John M. Wilgus, a locally well-
known architect in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. His pragmatic designs ranged
widely in terms of architectural style and programmatic use, and reflected the functional and
economic needs of his clients. Per criterion 5, the Chacona Block "represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics." Located at the comer of College and Oak Avenues and opposite the stone bridge
over Cascadilla Creek, the Chacona Block at 4ll-415 College Avenue has served as a gateway
building into the Collegetown neighborhood from Cornell University since its construction in l9l2
and is a unique example of a historic, mixed-use, stucco-clad commercial building within the City.
As set forth in the Municipal Code, the Planning and Development Board has filed a report with
Common Council with respect to the relation of the proposed designation to the Comprehensive
Plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the site or
area involved. As noted in the report, the designation of the Chacona Block at 411-41 5 College
Avenue is supported by the Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines
(Collegetown Plan) and the City's comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca. Its designation does not
conflict with any scheduled or anticipated public improvements within area and is compatible
with MU-2 zoning. A copy of the full report is attached. No reply was received from the
Conservation Advisory Council in response to our request (as required by CEQR $ 176-3-J) for
their comment on this proposal.
The Common Council is now requested to act to designate, veto, or refer the designation back to
the ILPC for modification. A draft resolution is included in this packet for the Council's
consideration.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with 2commitment to workforce diversification.,'
ILPC MeetinS-08/08/17
Resolution - RA-3
RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Chacona Block, 4ll-415 College Avenue
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the lthaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) may recorunend to Common Council the designation landmarks
and districts of historic and cultural significance, and
\THE,RE,AS, the public hearing opened on Tuesday, -fuly 11, 201,7 for the puqpose of considering a
proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-115 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca
landmark has been concluded on August 8,2017, and
\rHE,RE,AS,the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building & Strucrure Inventory Form
dated August L, 2012, including the llanatiae Duniption of Propeftl and the Naratiue
Desription of Signfitance prepared by the Secretary of the Commission, L. Truame, based
on materials submitted to the ILPC in 2012 by Sara Johnson and I(risten Olsen of
Historic lthaca,Inc., with Mary Raddant Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the revised New York State Bui-lding & Strucrure Inventolv
Form dated August B, 2017, including the l\arratiae Duriplion of the Prupert1 and the
revised Nanatiae Duniption of Signifcaace prepared by the Secretary of the Commission,
B. McCracken, based materials provided by Christine O'Malley and Sara Johnson of
Historic Ithaca, Inc., and Mary Raddant Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the proposal is a Tlpe II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act
and the City Environmental Q""lity Review Ordinance and as such requires no further
environmental review, and
WHEREAS,consideration of the Chacona Block as an historic resource was introduced in a report
oreoared bv Marv Tomlan and lohn Schroeder on [une L4.2009 enuded Collesetown
Historic Resources Worth], of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown. Individual
Burldrnss. Architecrural Ensembles and Landscaoe Features. and
WHEREAS,the Collegelown Urbaa Plan (r Conceptual Duign Caidelinaq endorsed by Common Council
in August, 2009, recommends that "historically significant resources withtn the entire
Collegetown Planning Area which merit designadon as local landmarks, but which
currendy have no such protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission and designated by Common Council," and
WHEREAS, based on the information provided in the Collegetown Historic Resources Worthv of
Ensembles and Landscape Features document and the recommendadon from the
Co//egetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Durg Guidelires, the ILPC conducted an intensive-
level survey o[ twelve properdes within the Collegetown Planning Area that appeared
to meet the eligibility requirements for local designation as set forth in Section 228-38
of the Municipal Code in2012,and
Ithaca Landmrks l)resenation (irmmission
N'lccting t leld 'l ucsdav, August tl, 2017
(lhacona lllock
\\.HE.RE,IS.the New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form, which is being used as the
basis for considering this recommended designation, was prepared as part of the
aforemendoned intensive-level survey, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the crjteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the
cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nadon; or
2. Is idenufied with historically significant person(s) or cvent(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing charactelistics of an architectural style; or
,[. Is the work of a designer whose work has sigruficandy influenced an age; or
5. Represents an established and lamitar visual feature of the communiw byvirtue of
its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own, the documentation and information more
fullv set forth in the exoanded New York State Buildins Strucrurc Inventorv Form
dated August 8, 2017, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the
proposed designation.
\s described in the l\analiue Deriplion oJ Signfitanrc portion of the Nerv York State
Historic Resource Inventory Form prepared bv L. Truame and dated August L,2012,
the Chacona Block and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-1,is
a structure deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as
enumerated below:
Pet criterion 1, the Chacona Block possesses special historical and aesthetic
interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of
the City of Ithaca through its close association with the development and growth of
Cornell University, as an example of the eady-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking housing in close proximiq'
to Cornell University, and for its role in the development of Collegetorvn as an urban
neighborhood separate from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct character.
As described in the Narratiae Desciption of Signifcance, Cornell Universiry
offered few lodging opportunities for its students, faculty and staif when it
open in 1868. As a result, boarding and rooming houses as well as many
student-oriented service industries were established in close proximity to the
2
Ithaca Lrndmrks l)rescn'ation (lomrnission
i\leeting Held'l ucsdav, ,\ugust tl, 2017
(lhacona Block
university startingin the 1870s and 1880s. By the first two decades of the
20th century, preference in the rental housing matket in Ithaca, particulady
among the faculty and staff living in the ^rea
that would become known as
Collegetown, had shifted av/ay from single-room rentals like those found in
the boarding and rooming houses to flat-style apartments-a urban-housing
mode that contained kitchen, bathroom and living areas in one private unit.
Built between 1,91,1, and 1,91,2, the Chacona Block was r>ne of the first mixed-
use mercantile-residential buildings to be constructed near the Universiry to
meet this demand. Its three ground-floot commercial spaces housed
businesses that catered to the ever growing student population while the
upper-storT flats provided independent housing opportunities for
professionals living in Collegetown.
The l\aratiae Desniption of Significanrc further notes that "the construction of
the Chacona Block was a key part of Collegetown's transformation from an
extension of the downtown housing and services to a vibrant neighborhood
with a distinct identity." As one of the first mixed-use commercial-style
buildings on College Avenue, the construction of the Chacona Block marked
the beginning of the gradual urbanization of the .100 block of that street, a
process that allowed the street to become the commercial and housing center
ofa neighborhood centered on the needs ofstudents.
Per criterion2, the Chacona Block is identified with historically significant
person(s) or event(s) through its association with the Chacona family, the
proprietors ofa chain ofsuccessful confectionery and ice cteam shops in Ithaca and
beyond in the late nineteenth- and eadv-twentieth centuries, andJohn N. Chacona,
specifically.
As noted in the llarratiae Duniption of Stgntfcance, -)ohn N. Chacona, was an
active and influential member of the Greek-American business communiry in
Ithaca at the turn of the 20th century. John N. Chacona was born in Sparta,
Greece in 1884 and immigrated to the United States at the age of nine. He
settled in the Ithaca area tn 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy
Company on East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona. _f ohn P.
Chacona was known as "BigJohn" andJohn N. Chacona was known as
"LitdeJohn". The two operated successful confectionary stores together and
independently, not only in Ithaca but also rn Buffalo and Syracuse. When
their partnership dissolved, John N. opened several independent
confectionary shops, the first betng at 416 Eddy St. He also operated the
Sugar Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona. John
N. commissioned the Chacona block in 1912 and opened another
confectionary shop in the storefront at 415 College Avenue. With rts close
proximity to Cornell University, this shop andJohn N. Chacona, himself,
became important parts of the social lives of Cornell University students
3
Ithaca Landmulis l)rcscn'irtion (lommission
i\{eetrng l{cld 'l'ucsda1, August 8, 2017
(-hacona lllock
Per criterion 3, the Chacona Block embodies the distinguishing characteristics
of an architectural style.
As noted in the I'larratiue Desription of Signfrcance, the Chacona Block is a
good local example of the commercial form of the Renaissance-Revival Swle.
The building's architecture also represents a community-supportcd
movement to make the buildings in Collegetown more fire resistant in the
savly-2grn century. The building was designed to be "frre proof," and was
constructed of fire-resistant mateials, heated with steam, and illuminated
with electnc lights to reduce the danger of fire. Furthermore, the building
derives additional significance from its unique architectural features that
reflect the heritage of the famil-v that commissioned it. Positioned between
the windows on fourth story, the lion's head and Greek cross decorative
plaques denote the Chacona family's Gteek origins.
Per criterion 4, the Chacona Block is the work of a designer whose wotk has
significantly influenced an age.
As noted intheNanatiueDuniption of Signifcanw, the buildrng's designer,-fohn
M. Wilgus, was a locally well-known architect in the late-nineteenth and eady-
twentieth centuries. He was responsible for the design of sevetal Collegetown-
^re mercantile-residential buildings, including the McAllister Block at the
corner of Eddy and Wilhams Streets (1907), theJohnJ Gainey Block
(demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Rd (1899), and
another Gainey Block at 31.5-31.7 College Avenue (1908). He also designed the
bnck commercial buildrng^t11,4-1,18 South Cayuga Street and several
downtown residences, many of them located in National Register Historic
Districts. \{'ilgus's pragmatic designs ranged widelv in terms of architectutal
style and programmatic use, and reflected the funcdonal and economic needs
of his clients.
Per criterion 5, -I'he Chacona Block represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
Located at the comer of College and Oak Avenues and opposite the stone
bddge over Cascadilla Creek, the Chacona Block at 111.-415 College Avenue
has served as a gateway building into the Collegetown neighborhood from
Cornell Universiry since its construction in 1,912. As noted in the llarratiue the
Deviplion oJ Signifcann, this prominently located properry was sought after as
a business location by the eady 1900s and its development, including
marketing and sale of the propertv, design and construction of the building,
4
Ithaca l,andmrks l)rcscn'ation (lommission
Nlccting I leld'l'ucsdav, August ll, 2017
(.hacona llkrck
and the ^ppe r^nce and amenities of the completed building, werc well
documented in numerous local and regional publications.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preserv-adon Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the Chacona Block at 111-415 College Avenue meets cliterion
1., 2, 3, 4, and 5 defining a Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-4 of the
Murucipal Code, Landmarks Presen adon, and be it further
RESOLYED, that the Commission hereby recorunends the designation of the Chacona Block at
411-41,5 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca local historic landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies:
I( Olson
S. Stein
S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, I( Olson,J. Minner
0
0
S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
0
5
Submit by Email Print Form
b
r
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION
& H ISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY.12188
(51 8) 237-8643
Chacona Block
Orrrce Use Ouv
USN:
IDENTIFICATION
Property name(if any)
Address or street Location 411-415 college Avenue
County Tompkins Town/City Ithaca Village/Hamlet:
O*n.,. Strdent Agencies, lnc.Address 409 College Avenue, lthaca, NY 14850
Original use mixed-use current raa mixed-use
ArchitecUBuilder,if known John M. Wilgus Date of construction,if known 1911-12
DESCRIPTION
Materials - please check those materials that are visible
Roof:! asphalt, shingle E asphalt, roll E wood shingle E metal E slate
Exterior Walls:E wood clapboard
E stone
! vinyl siding
! wood shingle
E nrict<
E aluminum siding
E verticalboards
E poured concrete
E cemenlasbestos
! plywood
! concrete block
other: stucco
Foundation:E stone E uricr ! poured concrete E concrete block
Other materials and their location:
Alterations, if known:see continuation sheet Date:
Condition E excellent E good E tair ! deteriorated
Photos
Provide several clear, original photographs of the property proposed for nomination. Submitted views should represent the property as a
whole. For buildings or structures, this includes exterior and interior views, general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. Color
prints are acceptable for initial submissions.
Please staple one photograph providing a complete view of the structure or property to the front of this sheet. Additional views should be
submitted in a separate envelope or stapled to a continuation sheet.
Maps
Attach a printed or drawn locational map indicating the location of the property in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely
recognized features so that the property can be accurately positioned. Show a north anow. lnclude a scale or estimate distances where
possible.
Prepared by:B. McCracken address 108 E. Green St., lthaca, NY 14850
emait bmccracken@cityofithaca.orgTelephone:(607) 274-6555
(See Reverse)
Date 818117
STATE AND NATIONAL REGISTERS PROGRAM
HISTORiC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOILOWING INFORMATION
NarrativeDescriptionofProperty: Brieflydescribethepropertyanditssetting. lncludeaverbal descriptionofthe
location (e.g., north side of NY 17, west of Jones Road); a general description of the building, structure or feature
including such items as architectural style (if known), number of stories, type and shape of roof (flat, gabled,
mansard, shed or other), materials and landscape features. ldentify and describe any associated buildings,
structures or features on the property, such as garages, silos, privies, pools, gravesites. ldentify any known
exterior and interior alterations such as additions, replacement windows, aluminum or vinyl siding or changes in
plan. lnclude dates of construction and alteration, if known. Attach additional sheets as needed.
See continuation sheet
Narrative Description of Significance: Briefly describe those characteristics by which this property may be
considered historically significant. Significance may include, but is not limited to, a structure being an intact
representative of an architectural or engineering type or style (e.9., Gothic Revival style cottage, Pratt through-
truss bridge); association with historic events or broad patterns of local, state or national history (e.g., a cotton mill
from a period of growth in local industry, a seaside cottage representing a locale's history as a resort community, a
structure associated with activities of the "underground railroad."); or by association with persons or organizations
significant at a local, state or national level. Simply put, why is this property important to you and the community.
Attach additional sheets as needed.
See continuation sheet
Revised 9/09
2
Field Services Bureau ' Division for Historic Preservation . New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation . www.nysparks.com/shpo *
Narrative Description of Propertv:
Chacona Block, 4ll-415 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The Chacona Block is a 3 %-story, commercial-style, stucco-clad building constructed in
l9ll-1912 in the Renaissance Revival Style. Three plaques on the building's faqade depict
lions' heads and a Greek cross, a reference to builder John N. Chacona's Greek heritage.
The building occupies a prominent location in the heart of Collegetown at the edge of the
Cornell University campus. It is among the earlier commercial-style buildings constructed
in Collegetown to provide both rental apartments and commercial space.
Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues at a prominent site adjacent to the campus of
Comell University, this representative of the commercial, Renaissance Revival Style is a mixed-
use building housing commercial space in its three ground-floor storefronts and residential space
in its upper stories. The building anchors the corner of a continuous row of mixed-use.
commercial buildings on the southern side of the College Avenue Bridge. The Chacona Block
and the Larkin Building, located in the same commercial row, were constructed in the early
twentieth century and set the tone for the late-twentieth century buildings that complete the block
today. Neighboring wood-frame buildings were replaced by these newer commercial buildings,
appropriately-scaled and complimentary to the historic Chacona and Larkin buildings as well as
their neighbor across the street, Sheldon Court. The Chacona's location on a trapezoidal-shaped,
corner lot allows for a large, outdoor gathering space on its north elevation. currently used as an
outdoor dining area for Collegetown Bagels, which occupies the storefront of 415 College
Avenue. This space is important to the neighborhood's character, providing a gathering space for
the Cornell University and Collegetown community in a neighborhood with little outdoor public
space.
To the north of the Chacona Block, the historic stone arch College Avenue bridge across
Cascadilla Creek connects the Collegtown neighborhood to the Cornell University campus. To
the immediate east is St. Luke Lutheran Church at 109 Oak Avenue. constructed in I 923-24.
Further along Oak Avenue are late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century homes, most
I
Ug
d
j
t
r il
I
))
"I
r r,ir rr
f, Eit, r'. !,
converted for student or fraternity housing, and the Cascadilla School on the corner of Oak and
Summit Avenues. Across College Avenue to the west are Sheldon Court and Cornell's Schwartz
Center for the Performing Afts, with Cascadilla Hall further west. To the south along the 300
block of College Avenue are more commercial buildings, most of them dating from the late-
twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries; along the 100 and 200 blocks of College Avenue are
formerly single-family homes converted to student apartments. except for the Grand View House
at209 College Avenue, the last surviving of Collegetown's great boardinghouses.
The Chacona Block is constructed of hollow clay tile and brick with a steel frame. The
building's three-bay, four-story principal fagade (west) contains three storefronts in the first
story, with a simple cornice dividing the first story from the upper stories of the building. Each
bay of the second and third stories contains a group of three 6/l windows, with the center
window being slightly wider than the two flanking it. In the fourth story, the center windows of
the north and south bays are replaced with a round lion's-head plaque. In place of the center
bay's center window is a round plaque depicting a shield emblazoned with a Greek cross. The
flanking windows on the fourth story are 4ll and shorter than the windows of the stories below.
The west fagade is capped by a wide comice and stepped parapet. Upper floor windows
throughout the building lack moldings or ornament, with the exception of simple sills clad in the
same pebble-dash stucco as the walls.
The northernmost storefront, designated as 415 College Avenue, consists of a central expanse of
plate glass topped with several fixed sash each containing many small lights in a grid pattem of 9
units in width, 7 in height. This glazing pattern appears to be original to the building, and
continues into the angled, sheltered storefront entrance shared by the entrance to the nofthern
apartments' stair hall as well as the entrance to the center storefront, designated as 413 College
Avenue. The ceiling of the sheltered entrance is finished with pressed metal panels, likely
original to the building. Surmounting the plate glass windows of the center storefront is an art-
glass transom window, likely originalto the building, partially visible behind a modern sign.
The southemmost storefront, at 4l I College Avenue, departs in appearance from the nofthern
two and was extensively altered sometime after 19751. Where it once had a sheltered entrance
similar to the one shared by 413 and 415, it now has a vaguely Gothic-Revival style appearance,
including windows with pointed-arch mullions, a round-arched entry door, and heavy wood
paneling and moldings.
Brick pilasters mark the north and south corners of the west fagade and delineate the 41 I and 413
storefronts. ln a 1975 photograph, these appear to be stuccoed and/or painted to match the
exterior wall treatment of the upper stories.2
The north fagade of the Chacona Block consists of six bays, with single 6/l windows on the
second and third stories centered over first-story bays of large plate-glass windows each topped
with two transom sash containing 6 lights. The exception to the pattern is in the second bay from
the east, which contains paired 6/l windows on the second and third stories over a glass
1 New York State Building-Structure lnventory Form photograph, 1975, Historic lthaca, lnc., lthaca, Ny
'?tbid.
greenhouse-type structure (added after 19753) within the first story bay which provides a second
entrance to the commercial space. There are no fourth-story windows on the north fagade. The
brick wall and pilasters dividing the bays of the first story appears to have been originally
stuccoed to match the upper stories. The wall terminates in a parapet which steps down towards
the rear (east) of the building, disguising a low-slope shed roof. A palimpsest suggests that the
height of the building was increased at some point prior to 1954.4
At the rear (east) fagade, a three-story partially-enclosed addition (at one time open porches)
includes a fire escape. At the south, the single-story storefront of 409 College Avenue forms a
continuous streetwall at the ground level. The upper floors of the south fagade are similar to the
north fagade, except for the elevator shaft of 409 College Avenue which adjoins the Chacona
Block about midway along the south fagade, providing elevator access to both 409 and 411-415.
:
Chacona Block, 4ll-415 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The Chacona Block is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a local
interpretation of the commercial form of the Renaissance Revival Style.
The Chacona Block is significant for its close association with the growth and development
of Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking to reside in proximity to the
campus, and for its role in the development of Collegetown, particularly College Avenue, as
an urban neighborhood separate from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct
character. Built in l9ll-12 as a mixed-use, fireproof, commercial-style building replacing
an earlier wood boardinghouse, the construction of the Chacona Block on a site adjacent to
the campus of Cornell University established it as one of Collegetown's most prominent
and recognizable buildings. The Chacona Block has additional local significance for its
association with John N. Chacona, the owner of a successful chain of confectionary and ice
cream shops in Ithaca, as well as with the larger Greek business community in Ithaca.
The building's designer, John M. Wilgus, was locally well-known in the late 19th and early
20th centuries as the architect of several Collegetown-area mercantile-residential buildings,
including the McAllister Block at the corner of Eddy and Williams Streets (1907-08), the
John J. Gainey Block (demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Road
(1899), and another Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue (1908), as well as the Chacona
Block. Wilgus also designed the brick commercial building at 114-118 S. Cayuga St. and
several downtown residences, many of which are located within National Register districts.
3 tbid
a Tompkins County Department of Assessment, Tompklns County Tax Assessment photograph, 1954, Historic
Ithaca, lnc., lthaca, NY.
Wilgus's father John B. Wilgus and uncle Henry L. Wilgus were successful merchants who
erected the Wilgus Block at the corner of State and Tioga Streets.
Along with the rest of Collegetown and much of the present-day city of Ithaca, the Chacona
Block property was part of the extensive holdings amassed by Simeon DeWitt following the
allotment of lands within the Military Tract. The area now called Collegetown was settled
relatively early due to the abundant water power provided by Cascadilla Creek. In 1827 Otis
Eddy, for whom Eddy Street is named, established his cotton mill on the current site of
Cascadilla Hall. Eddy had already constructed a dam in Cascadilla Gorge to direct water to his
mill pond. Called Willow Pond, it endured until the 1890s, crossed by Huestis Street
immediately north of the present-day sites of the Chacona Block and Sheldon Court.
Much of the land on East Hillwas farmed or grazed during the early l9th century, and in 1857
the DeWitt farm north of Cascadilla Creek was purchased by Ezra Cornell, who would go on to
donate 200 acres for the campus of his namesake university. To the south of the creek. much of
present-day Collegetown was part of the 2l-acre John and Samuel Giles estate. Possibly
anticipating commercial and residential development after the opening of Cornell LJniversity in
1868, the Giles heirs divided the estate into urban-size parcels and sold them in the 1870s. The
lot that would become 4ll-415 College Avenue was identified as Lot #4 of the John and Samuel
Giles estate; the lot that would become 409 College Avenue was Lot #3.s
The shortage of student housing that continues to plague Cornelltoday began as soon as the
University opened in 1868. At that time, the university provided only two lodging facilities:
Cascadilla Hall and a poftion of Morrill Hall. Cascadilla Hall was repurposed building designed
(but never used) as a water-cure sanitarium located on the rim of the gorge across Cascadilla
Creek from the campus. Morrill Hall was the first building designed and constructed for
university use, and included both residential and instructional space. Those who did not lodge on
campus rented rooms in homes downtown and endured multiple daily treks up East Hill before
omnibus service began in 1876.
It appears that the first structure on the site of the Chacona Block was the boardinghouse
constructed for Ellen M. Murphy in 1884 to cater to Cornell University students living off-
campus in proximity to the student-oriented services beginning to flourish at the edge of campus.
The house appears in an undated photograph prior to 1904 as a 2-story frame gable-and-ell
structure with several projections and additions probably intended to maximize the number of
rentable rooms.6 It was one of four large, wood frame, residential style buildings on the east side
of the block. This prominently located property across from Sheldon Couft was sought after as a
s Deed conveying 413-415 College Avenue to Student Agencies Properties, lnc. from Lynn Breedlove and Gary Gut,
May19t9TT,OfficeoftheTompkinsCountyClerk,book55T,page46T,lthaca,NY. Deedconveying4llCollege
Avenue to John E. Van Natta from Giles heirs, April I1876, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, book 9, page 325,
Ithaca, NY.
6Carol Sisler,MargaretHobbie,andJaneMarshDieckmann,eds., lthoca'sNeighborhoods,(lthaca,NY: DeWitt
Historical Society of Tompkins County, 1988), 168. The photograph also shows the Otis Eddy Mill Pond, which had
disappeared by the time the publication of the 1904 Sanborn Maps company fire insurance map of lthaca.
business location by the early 1900s, with a January 9, 1908 lthaca Daily News article reporting
that Ms. Murphy turned down an offer of $ I 3,000 for the property amid speculation that the east
side of the 400 block of College Avenue would soon be developed into one business block.T
During the planning of the Chacona Block in l9l I , it was noted that Mr. Chacona had not yet
decided whether the existing boardinghouse building would be torn down or relocated.8
The heyday of the Collegetown boardinghouses lasted from around 1880 to 1915. During this
time, they provided meals to many who lodged elsewhere - downtown or within fraternity
houses that lacked dining facilities. The advent of on-campus cafeterias sounded the death-knell
for the boardinghouses, already losing business to the newer rooming-houses and apaftment
buildings appearing in Collegetown. By 1919 only one of the four early boardinghouses
remained on the 400 block of College Avenue.
John N. Chacona purchased 4l I and 413-415 College Avenue from Ellen Murphy on June 30,
191 I . The Chacona Block was constructed to reflect the existence of the two parcels, with a
masonry wall dividing the ground floor along the property line. For many years following
Chacona's ownership, the two parcels were held by different owners.
The plans for the new building were made public August 3, l9l le and newspaper coverage
followed the project until its completion in 19l2.The cost of the building was estimated at
$30,000-S40,000. It contained space on the ground floor for three shops, and three six-room flats
on each of the second and third floors, all "strictly up-to-date with all modern conveniences,"
including a vacuum cleaning system, steam heat, and electric light.l0 The attic was designated for
storage. The northern two apartments on each floor were accessible from a common, skylit
stairway and hall, while the southern apartments were reached from a separate entrance and stair
hall, lit by windows opening to a narrow light well between the southern and central units.
Masonry, structural steel and carpentry work was contracted to the Ithaca Contracting Company,
plumbing and heating work were done by W. C. Dean, wiring and electrical work by Davis-
Brown Electrical Company, "painters and decorators" were the firm of Vredenburg, Kelly &
Bell, and the windows, plate glass, and builder's hardware were supplied by Treman, King &
Co.ll
The Chacona Block apaftments were representative of flat-style apartment units, an urban
housing mode that contained kitchen, bathroom, and living areas in one private unit. This type of
apartment became popular in Ithaca during the first two decades of the twentieth century,
particularly in Collegetown.
The building was designed by the locally prominent architect, John M. Wilgus, who enjoyed a
more than forty-five year career in the field. In contrast to most of his professional
contemporaries such as A. B. Dale, William H. Miller, Clinton Vivian, and the partners of the
firm of Gibb &Waltz. John M. Wilgus was raised in Ithaca, where his family was actively
7 lthoco Daily News, January 9, 1908, page 5.
8 lthoco Chronicle ond Democrof, August 77, L917, page 5.
e lthaco Weekly lournol, August 3,1977, page 6.
10 lthoco Chronicle ond Democrot, August 77,7911, page 5. lthoco Doily Journol, July 13,1912, page 9
rt lthoco Doily News, August 76,7977, page 3.
involved in the business and social life of the city from the mid-19th through the early-2Oth
centuries. His father John B. and uncle Henry L. Wilgus commissioned the Wilgus Block,
erected in 1867-68 at the southwest corner of State and Tioga Streets, home to the Wilgus Bros.
retail firm and Wilgus Hall (later Wilgus Opera House), a site now occupied by a porlion of the
Center Ithaca building. Local newspapers regularly reported on activities and events associated
with Wilgus family members, such as the February 5, 1880, wedding of John M. and Carrie
Thompson, the daughter of Ithaca grocer Thaddeus Thompson, complete with a description of
the bride's attire, wedding gifts (including a calendar clock) and the presence of the "city
orchestra" at the reception.12 The marriage in 1890 of John's sister, Lois, to Cornell graduate J.
Herbert Ballantine, a member of the noted New Jersey brewing company, was covered as "the
nuptial event of the season."l3 The press followed the career of John's brother, Charles, who
purchased and consolidated two newspapers in Ravenna, Ohio, commissioning John to design a
substantial new building there in 1904.14 The travels of John, Carrie and their daughter Amelia
were also noted by the local papers, whether trips to visit friends in Auburn. New York, to the
Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo in l90l or to visit family in Pasadena, California in 1913.15
John M. Wilgus began his architectural career in the mid-1880s, and as a member of an
established family within the Ithaca community, he likely had numerous social and business
connections that would bolster his long and successful career. Unlike some of his
contemporaries, John M. Wilgus did not pursue architectural studies at Cornell University or
work in the prestigious office of William H. Miller. After some limited design work on his own,
he partnered with Alfred B. Dale, a well-known local architect during the last half of the l gth
century. l6Dale's works included the Boardman House at 120 E. Buffalo St. (DeWitt Park
Historic District), the Griffin Block at224 E. State St. (NR Ithaca Downtown Historic District),
and the Andrus-Whiton House at222 S. Aurora St. (lndividual Local Landmark). Although this
partnership was short-lived,l7 it undoubtedly gave Wilgus valuable professionalexperience and
exposure to potential clients within and outside of the community. In June 1887, Wilgus set up
his own office in the Wilgus Block, and began designing buildings that ranged widely in terms of
architectural style and programmatic use.l8 His works included everything from single-family
residences to three- and four-story mixed-use buildings to a least one religious structure. Some of
his early residential works included the F. M. Bush House at 1 10 N. Albany St. ( I 889;
Downtown West Historic District), E. P. Gilbert House at 518 E. State St. (c. I 893; East Hill
Historic District), and C. A. lves duplex at204 N. Cayuga St. (1893; DeWitt Park Historic
District).le Wilgus's mixed-use commercial and apartment buildings included the Livingston
Apartments at 318 E. Seneca St. (1896), I l4-118 S. Cayuga St. (1898; NR Ithaca Downtown
Historic District), the McAllister Block at418-426 Eddy St. (1894-95;redesigned and rebuilt
1908-09 after fire; East Hill Historic District), and the Gainey Block at 3 I 5-3 l7 College Avenue
Lz lthoco Doily tournol, February 6, 1880, page 4.
13 lthoco Democrot, September 25,1890, page 1.
ra lthoca Democrot, August 29,,7895, page 5; lthoco Doily lournol, May 28, 1904, page 3, respectively.
15 lthoco Doily Journol, June 16, 1904, page 3; October 5, 1901, page 3; February 3, 1913, page 6, respectively.
16 lthoco Doily Journol, Aug. !7 , 1883, page 3; 1886 lthaca City Directory.
17 lthoco Doily lournol, June 9, 1887, page 3.
18 1888 lthaca City Directory.
le lthoco Doily lournol, Apr. t7,1888, page 3; tthoco Doily Journol, Jan. 9, 1889, p.3; tthoco Demouot, Aug. 77,
1893, page 5.
(1908).20 These buildings exhibit characteristics that reflect Wilgus's pragmatic and economical
approach to building design, specifically their relatively simple brick fagades with limited
ornamentation.
One of Wilgus's more distinctive commissions, the First Church of Christ, Scientist again
demonstrated his abilityto meetthe aesthetic, practicaland financial needs of his clients.
Located at the base of Cascadilla Park, an early-Z}tl'century planned residential development
along Cascadilla Gorge, this Craftsman Style church was designed to meet the aesthetic
requirements of this upscale development and the financial restrictions of the congregation that
commissioned it. Built in l9l 0- l l, the church's simple design reflected the architectural quality
of the surrounding residences, provided the programmatic space needed by the congregation, and
proved buildable within the limited means of the organization.2r
The design of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue reflected this same practical
approach to design as wellas the architect's consideration of the needs and wishes of his client.
Reminiscent of his other mixed-use, commercial, and apartment buildings, Wilgus's design for
the Chacona Block included a relatively unadorned west fagade and north elevation, a simple
wood cornice and a stepped parapet. The building's large windows openings, skylight over the
central interior staircase and light well between 4l I and 413-415 College Avenue admitted
natural light into the interior spaces and reduced the need for artificial light. an expensive
amenity in 1912. The original storefronts on the 413-415 College Avenue reflected this same
design approach but on a much smaller scale. The large plate glass windows at street level on
the west fagade and north elevation allowed pedestrians to easily see the merchandise within the
shops. The prism-glass transoms over the plate glass windows on the west fagade provided
ventilation through their casement openings and directed natural light into the deep commercial
spaces, again reducing the need for artificial light. The wood cornice above the glazed
storefronts and the recessed doors completed the simple, yet highly functional, storefront
composition.
The client's influence on the design was most distinctly represented in the pebble-dash stucco
exterior, a unique feature of this design, and the west fagade's stone plaques. The building's
distinctive lion's head and Greek cross decorative plaques at the fourth floor bore witness to
John N. Chacona's native land.
Wilgus's design also addressed concerns about life-safety in the quickly urbanizing Collegetown
neighborhood. Fires remained a tremendous threat in the neighborhood well into the early-2Oth
century. This danger was the result of the lack of running water in some buildings, the continued
use of kerosene and gas lighting, and the lack of organized fire protection for Collegetown.
Although the Company No. 9 firehouse was established in 1895 and a better water supply
secured, major fires continued to destroy properties on the hill. A 1907 fire damaged several
Eddy Street buildings, including the locations of the John Chacona Candy Company store, the
Student Agencies laundry, and a men's clothing shop, possibly the Toggery Shops which moved
20 lthaco Doily Journol, Feb. 15, 1910, page 5; National Register of Historic Places, lthaca Downtown Historic
District, lthaca, Tompkins, New York, National Register #04NR05326; lthoco Democrot, Sept. 13,1,894, page 5, and
Ithoco Doily Journol, Nov. 11, 1908, page 3; lthaco Doily Journol, Mar.28, 1908, page 6, respectively.
21 lthoco Doily Journol, May 23, 1910, page 3; July 15, 1910, page 3.
to the new Chacona Block along with the candy store in 1912. The modern rooming houses and
apartment buildings constructed in the early 1900s - Sheldon Court, the Larkin Building and
others - were constructed of fire-resistant materials, heated with steam, and illuminated with
electric lights to reduce the danger of fire. Wilgus incorporated these features as well as
structural terra cotta tile and stucco, steel framing and abundant sources of natural light into the
design to reduce the threat posed by fire.22
The commissioner of the Chacona Block, John N. Chacona, was an active and influential
member of the Greek-American business community in Ithaca at the tum of the 20th century.
John N. Chacona was born in Sparta, Greece in 1884 and immigrated to the United States at the
age of nine. He settled in the lthaca area in 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy Company on
East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona.23 John P. Chacona was known as "Big John"
and John N. Chacona was known as "Little John". These nicknames were commonly known and
frequently used to distinguish John P. from John N. in newspaper accounts of their business and
family activities. The two operated successful confectionary stores together and independently,
not only in lthaca but also in Buffalo and Syracuse. When their partnership dissolved, John N.
opened several independent confectionary shops, the first being at 416 Eddy St. He also
operated the Sugar Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona.2a
With the completion of the Chacona block in 1912, John N. opened another confectionary shop
in the storefront at 4l 5 College Avenue. With its close proximity to Cornell University,
Chacona's confectionary shop at 415 College Avenue, and John N. Chacona, himsell, became
important pafts of student life. In the April 26, 1918 issue of the Cornell Daily Sun, the satirical
"Freshman Rules for l9l8-19" referenced the store in rule numberthree: "no freshman shall be
allowed in Chacona's or downstairs in Candyland under any circumstances, nor upstairs in
either, unless accompanied by an upperclassm an."25 References to the John N. Chacona and his
candy shop appeared regularly inthe Cornell Era, a student produced publication published
between 1868 and 1924. A poem titled "Fame" by Morris Bishop, class of l913 and later
Cornell historian, in the 1912-1913 issue of this publication included these lines: "With the John
N. Chacona Hussars/Then followed the Greeks of the Candy Trade,/Their Martial rage to
evince/And red-haired youths spoiled my drinks/(l've hardly recovered since)."26
Apart from Chacona's confectionary shop in 4l 5 College Avenue, the storefronts at 4 I I and 41 3
College Avenue were occupied by numerous student-oriented businesses in the second and third
decades of the 20th century, including The Toggery Shops, a billiards establishment, A & B
22 An announcement in a local newspaper awarding the bids for the construction of the building noted that the
building was to be constructed of hollow tile with a stucco exterior, and that steel was to be used for girders and
beams. The masonry, structural steel and carpentry contract was reported to have been let to lthaca Contracting
Company. lthqcoChronicle&Democrof,August17,791,1,,pageX. UponcompletionoftheChaconaBlock,theNo.
t hook and ladder truck was called out to determine whether the extension ladder could reach the top of the new
building; it exceeded the height of the building by five feet. lthoco Doily News,May 17,1912, page 3
23 "J.N. Chacona's Twenty Years," tthoco Doily News, August 16,1919, page 5
24 "They Linked Greece to lthaca," The lthoco Journol, July 15, 1989, poge 14A.
2s Cornell Doily Sun, April 26, 1918
26 "Fame," Cornell Ero, L912-L3, (lthaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 3.
Stores selling student supplies, and the Orchard Tea Shop. Pop's Place, the confectionary shop
and, later, restaurant operated by John G. Papayanakos, replaced the Chacona shop in the corner
space at 4l 5 College Avenue. During this time, at least two physicians rented flats for use as
offices, while they resided elsewhere. Several Chacona family members, including John N.
Chacona, also lived in the building. Although it was in a prime location for attracting student
renters, the building's other early occupants were widows and professionals, including the
principal of the Cascadilla School, suggesting that the six-room flats were beyond the means of
most students at the time.21
The relocation of John N. Chacona's confectionary shop from Eddy Street to College Avenue
was paft of a larger shift in student- and university-oriented businesses from Eddy Street to
College Avenue in the early decades of the twentieth century. Other businesses that moved from
Eddy Street to College Avenue at this time were L.C. Bement's Toggery Shops, relocating to the
Chacona Block, and the Taylor & Co. Book Shop, relocating to ground floor of Sheldon Court.
While the nineteenth century saw student-oriented development both downtown and at the edge
of campus with a concentration along Eddy Street, in the early twentieth century, the
construction of large, commercial-style mixed-use buildings firmly established the 400 block of
College Avenue as the heart of Collegetown. The construction of the Chacona Block was a key
part of the area's transformation from an extension of downtown housing and services to a
vibrant neighborhood with a distinct identity. The distinct shift was documented in following
passage in the October 1 6, 1 9l 2 issue of the Cornell Alumni News:
Mercantile changes have taken place on the fringe of the campus. Right at the end
of College Avenue (Huestis Street), near the campus entrance, across from
Sheldon Court, Little John Chacona has built a big stucco block for stores and
apartments. Little John sells candy and ice cream there. One of the stores in the
block has been occupied by L.C. Bement, the hatter, hosier, etc., etc., who has
given up his shop on Eddy Street. Taylor & Company also have closed their Eddy
Street store and have doubled the size ofthe Triangle Book Shop in Sheldon Court.
Business tends to seek the center of population, and the student center has moved
up the hill in recent years. Hence the removals from Eddy Street. College Avenue
now drains a big area of students every day, and it is lined with shops for two long
blocks.28
The dual nomenclature of College Avenue in this passage alluded to a significant event that
permanently marked this street as the geographic center of Collegetown. With support from the
street residents and business owners, the City of Ithaca renamed Huestis Street as College
Avenue in 1908.
Three years after opening his 415 College Avenue store, he sold the business to his brothers,
Paul and Marcus, when he sailed to Greece to visit family. Upon his return to Ithaca in 1917,
JohnN.purchasedtheconfectionarybackfromhisbrothersandoperatedthebusinessuntil 1919,
27 lthaca city directories, 1864-1981, Historic lthaca, lnc., lthaca, NY
28 Cornell Alumni News, October 16, 1912.
when he sold the shop and block and returned to Greece, this time to bring his wife and children
back to lthaca.2e He also established Cozy Corners, a "delicatessen lunch and imported food
novelty shop," at the corner of E Buffalo and N. Aurora Streets in 1926.30
In l9l9 John N. Chacona sold the Chacona Block and confectionary business to James P. and
John G. Papayanakos, immigrants or their descendants hailing from the same Greek village as
the Chaconas. Papayanakos' business became known as Pop's Place and operated at 415 College
Avenue ulittil 1977 under a series of owners, many of whom were Greek-American.ll In fact, the
ownership of the building and proprietorship of tenant businesses at 413-415 College Avenue
through much of the twentieth century appears to have been by immigrants and/or their
descendants from the same village.32 The close business associations of these families were part
of the national pattern of cultural and family ties maintained by Greek and other immigrant
groups.
The southern portion of the Chacona Block,4l I College Avenue, came under different
ownership in 1925 when it was sold to George F. Doll, the proprietor of a men's clothing shop
occupying the storefront of 41 l. In 1954 he sold the property to Emmet M. and Mabel Doane
(Mabel operated the Hill Beauty Shoppe out of the storefront of 41 I ), who in tum sold to Student
Agencies Properties, Inc. in 1972.The owners of 413-415 College Avenue at that time, Lynn
Breedlove and Gary Gut, sold the northern portion of the Chacona Block to Student Agencies in
1977, once again consolidating the two parcels' ownership.
Student Agencies Properties, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Student Agencies, Inc., the
oldest independent student-run company in the United States. It was founded in 1894, providing
laundry and other profitable services to the student population. For several years the company
was sold from board to board, as students graduated and moved on, before it was finally
incorporated in 1910. With over $2 million in annual revenues, Student Agencies is the second-
largest employer of students after Cornell, and its services include shipping and storage, moving,
campus promotions, note-taking, housing, and publication of the Cornellian Yearbook.33
Student Agencies had made improvements and modifications to the Chacona Block over the last
30 years, including the installation of a sprinkler system. In the 1990s 4l I and 413-415, which
already shared a single fire escape, were consolidated into a single parcel.
2s lthoco Doily Journol, Februory 15, 19L7, poge 5.
30 Advertisement, The lthaco Journol, Februory 19, 1926, poge 1j.
31 "Pop's Place, Higher rent ends the experimenl," lthoco lournol, June9,1977, page 20.
32 Directory of the Tsintzinian Heritage Society of America. Owners of 413-415 College Avenue included James P.
and John G. Papayanakos (likely two of three brothers who settled in lthaca in the mid-1920s), George P. Nickles
(original name Nikolaides), PeterJ. Poulos (a John J. Poulos reportedly came to lthaca before 1913), and
Constantlne J. Manos (original name Voulomanos). Long-term leases on the candy shop were given to Constantine
J. Manos and George Conomikes (originally Economikis).
33 "Our Company," Student Agencies, lnc., accessed June 29,2072,
www.studentagencies.com/i nfo. php?page=ou r_company
Today, the tenants of the Chacona Block's storefronts - two eateries and a store selling t-shirts
and other Cornell-logo gear - reflect changes to the character of Collegetown and the orientation
of its businesses in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The variety of businesses
catering to students and other residents once included bookstores, salons and barbershops,
eateries, and clothing and shoe stores. Today, dining and enteftainment are by far the largest
proportion of business types in the neighborhood. The residential units within the Chacona
block, reorganized to offer I -bedroom to 5-bedroom apartments, remain highly desirable as
student rentals.
1.
Proposed Local Designation, 4LL-4L5 College Ave (The Chacona Block)
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held September 26,20L7
Moved by Schroeder, seconded by Jones Rounds ond unanimously opproved
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board shallfile the attached report with respect to the issues stipulated in the
Municipal Code. Proposed Local Designation: 403 College Avenue (The Chacona Block)
At the regular monthly meeting on August 8,2017 the lthaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the Chacona Block at 41,I-415 College Avenue as a local
landmark. A map showing the location of the building and a summary of its historic and architectural
significance are attached to this report.
As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation,
"The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such
designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and
any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved."
The following report has been prepared to address these considerations.
Relation to the Comprehensive Plan
The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines (Collegetown Plan)
contains the following recommendations pertaining to historic resources:
5.M. Historicolly significont resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area
which merit designotion os locol historic landmarks, but which currently have no such
protection, should be identified by the lthoca Londmorks Preservation Commission and
designoted by Common Council. ldeolly, this process would toke ploce concurrently
with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-bosed Collegetown zoning
omendments.
5.N. Collegetown's cultural, orchitecturol and natural history should be highlighted ond
interpreted for both residents ond visitors through such elements as morkers, signs or
decorative sidewalk panels, in occordance with o themoticolly ond oestheticolly
coordinated progrom.
6.4. As o resource to be used when applying the new design stondords, exemplory
existing Collegetown buildings, both new ond historic, should be identified which can
serve os sources of inspirotion for designers. Suitoble newer buildings might include
40L, 407 and 409 College Avenue, and suitable older buildings might include not only
those structures selected for historic designation (see item 5.M, obove), but other non-
designoted older structures disploying ottroctive proportions or physicol design
elements thot could spork ideas suitoble for inclusion in projects under design.
The Collegetown Plan states the following with respect to the east side of the 400 block of
College Avenue, which includes the Chacona Block:
The exemplory row of buildings currently defining the eost side of College Avenue
between Oak Avenue ond Dryden Rood is proised in the Collegetown Vision
Stotement as being "o striking exomple of excellence in orchitecturol design within
on existing urbon context," ond this opinion is broodly shored by the lthoco
community.
The oesthetic harmony of this focade row is even more striking because two
component structures ore roughly a century old while the other three were built
more recently. Each of these buildings hos o well-designed facode in its own right,
but here-unlike other areos of Collegetown-the interploy of old ond new creotes o
unified streetscope whose oesthetic power is much greoter than the sum of its
(alreody ottroctive) ports.
Numerous design elements visuolly relote the individual buildings in this row to eoch
other and to the streetscope as o whole: (1) All five buildings present roughly the
same height when viewed from College Avenue; (2) the four northern most buildings
ore linked by o ground-floor horizontol "bose" of consistent height ond red-brick
color, which is then corried up verticolly by the red-brick Cioschi Building ot the
Dryden Road corner; (3) the upper-story portion of eoch of the four northernmost
buildings hos o harmonious light eorthtone color, ond is separated from the other
three (obove the linked ground-floor "base") by narrow slots which provide a visual
rhythm to the series of facodes; (4) the newer buildings, while contemporary in
expression, disploy deliberote design references to the older buildings, so thot
horizontol elements (though vorying in detoil) are carried ocross all five buildings ot
the some height, basic rhythms of facode orgonizotion are found on oll five buildings,
and even decorotive feotures of the older buildings are echoed by design elements of
the newer buildings.
The east side of the 400 block of College Avenue is o mojor urbon plonning success,
notable not only within its Collegetown context, but within the context of the City as
a whole, and no incentive (such os substantially increasing the moximum permitted
building height) should be enacted that would provide on economic incentive to
demolish any of the buildings, old or new, that together creote this exceptionol urbon
ensemble.
After the adoption of the Collegetown Plan, a Collegetown survey was completed, titled
"Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: lcons of Collegetown, lndividual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features," by Mary Tomlan and John
Schroeder, dated June 14, 2009. This study identified structures worthy of further research.
4.
The Larkin Building and the Chacona Block were identified as key elements of an architectural
ensemble on the east side of the 400 block of College Avenue.
Local designation is consistent with the Collegetown Plan and the 2009 Collegetown historic
resources survey.
2. Relation to Zoning Laws
The property is located in the Mixed Use-2 (MU-2)zoning district, the purpose and intent of
which are as follows:
The Mixed Use districts occommodote retoil, office, service, hotel, ond residentiol
uses, ond in most coses, multiple uses will be combined within the some building. The
purpose is to create a dynamic urbon environment in which uses reinforce each other
and promote on ottractive, wolkoble neighborhood.
Located in centrol Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts ollow the highest density
within the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Redevelopment is onticipated and
encouroged (with the exception of designoted local londmorks), ond the intent is to
concentrote the mojority of additionol development within these districts.
Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Building
height in the district is limited to a maximum of 6 stories and 80' and a minimum of 4 stories
and 45'. The existing building is four stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition
of stories. Any proposed exterior alterations or additions would be subject to the area
requirements in the MU-2 Zoning district and would require ILPC review to assess the visual
and historic compatibility.
3. Relation to Projected Public !mprovements
Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of College Avenue, including the 400
block, where this property is located. lmprovements, which are currently in the planning
process, will likely take place in 2020 and include realignment of the curb line and
improvements to pedestrian and bike amenities. Historic designation would not affect this
proposed work.
Relation to Plans for Renewal of the Site or the Area
There are no plans in the City's Community Development Block Grant program or by the lthaca
Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area. Local landmark designation
requires that any private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site
undergo review and approval by the lthaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work
commences.
Proposed Resolution
Common Council
November 1,2017
RE LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE CHACONA BLOCK AT 4I I-4I5
COLLEGE AVENUE.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the MunicipalCode, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) is responsible for recommending to Common
Council the designation of identified structures or resources as individual
landmarks and historic districts within the city, and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the ILPC concluded a public hearing for the purpose of
considering a proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College
Avenue 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 7,2,3,4, and 5 defining a "Local
Landmark" under Section 228-38 of the MunicipalCode and on August 8,2017,
voted to recommend the designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College
Avenue. and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file
a report with Common Councilwith respect to the relation of such designation to
the comprehensive 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 September 26,2017,
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 recommendation of designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to
the ILPC for modification of same; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council finds that the designation [is/is not] compatible with
and [will/will notl conflict with the comprehensive plan, existing zoning,
projected public improvements or any plans for renewal of the site and area
involved. and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Chacona Block at41l-415 College Avenue, [meets/does not meetl
"""'??;f,',1J::',-J#i:i;ffi:lj::i;L'*Nffli,lJ,i.",1,i;,:.x1""'J"":,';.
",part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality,
region, state, or nation; or
2. it is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. it embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
Proposed Resolution
Common Council
November 1,2017
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age:.
or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by
virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council [approves/disapproves] the designation of the
Chacona Block at 4ll-415 College Avenue and the adjacent areas that are
identified as tax parcel #64.-2- I as a local landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: 0
Seconded: 0
In favor: 0
Against 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.3
Preservation
League o/Ir{YS
20t7 0FFtcERS
Anne H. Van ln8en, chair
Jan C. K. Anderson, vice (hair
Karen Arrison, vi(e (halr
Chiu Yin Hempel. vice (hair
Dede B. Nash. vice (hair
John 5are. vice (hair
Carol Bentel, secretary
Scott Duenow,treasurer
Anne G. Older, chair emerita,
ex.offi(io
2O'I7 EOARO OF TRUSTEES
Duncan Barrett
lldiko Butler
David Christensen
5uzanne Clary
DL 6eorBette GrierKey
Gerald A. Holbrook
Dudley D.Johnson
Gregory R. Long
Lee Miller
Dianne s. o'Neal
Rev D..Thomas F. Pike
Franl Emile Sanchis lll
David Schnalenberg
Miriam Trementozzi
Arete Swartz Warren
Mrrkw.warren
Charlotte Worthy
Caroline Rob Zalegki
Jay DiLorenzo
Ptesident
October 24,2017
Mayor Svante Myrick and Common Council
City Hall
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: 411-415 College Avenue, lthaca
Dear Mayor Myrick and Members of the Common Council,
On behalf of the Preservation League of NewYorkState, lam writing in support of the
individual landmark designation of 411-415 College Avenue, also known as the "Chacona
Block." The Preservation League of New York State is the statewide non-profit organization
dedicated to the protection of New York's diverse and rich heritage of historic buildings,
districts, and landscapes. We lead advocacy, economic development, and educational
programs across New York State and serve as a unified voice to promote preservation.
The Chacona Block is significant because of its close association with the development and
growth of Cornell University and the Collegetown neighborhood, an important urban
corridor (separate from downtown lthaca) that possesses its own distinct character. The
building also holds local significance for its association with John N. Chacona, the owner of a
successful chain of confectionary shops in lthaca. The building designer, John M. Wilgus, was
also well-known in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for his work on many Collegetown-
area mixed-use buildings. Furthermore, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation has declared the Chacona Block to be eligible for inclusion on the State
and National Registers of Historic Places.
By declaring this important building an individual lthaca historic landmark, the City thereby
ensures that its physical attributes will be protected from insensitive changes or additions.
This building's historic integrity and craftsmanship must not be lost to a fleeting
development proposal or a failure to maintain the building. Because of its National Register
eligibility and location within a qualifying census tract, the current owner could take
advantage of Federal and New York State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits.
On behalf of the Preservation League of New York State and our professional colleagues at
Historic lthaca, I urge you to support the landmark designation of the Chacona Block at 411-
415 College Avenue. Thank you for your consideration of this important community issue.
Sincerely,
Jay A. DiLorenzo
President
2OI7 TRUSTEES COUNCIL
Kent Barwick
6eorge H. Beane
william L. Bernhard
Constance L. Clapp
william Clarkson
Randall T. Crawford
,oan K. Davidson
Steven C. En8elhart
Stephen A. Facey
R. Brandon Fradd
Dorothy Twining Globus
Lionel coldfrank lll
Roberta Brandes Gratz
Christopher Holbrook
Anne A. Hubbard
Rob€rt J. Kafn
Marilynn G. Karp
Robert J, Kregse
Alexia Lalli
Richard J. Lippes
Robert B. MacKay
Richard A. Maitino
.,ean M. Mccarroll
Henry A. McCartney
Norman M, Mintz
Gregory o'Connell
Ellen Phelan
Paul R. P(wost
Robert C. quinlan
Daniel G. Romualdez
.,anet C. Ross
Thomas.i. Schwarz
Robert D. Snedeker
Robert A.M. Stern
Cynthia C.Wainwright
Diana S.waite
Steven J. Welss
44 central Avenue Albany, New York nzo6 5r8.462.s658 sr8.462.5684 Fax www.preservenys.org
Zzz--
Back-up lnformation for ltem 10.3
SArF
DENT AGENCIES FOUNDAIION
Student Agencies statement to the Planning and Economic Development Committee of lthaca Common Council
October 17,2077
On behalf of Student Agencies, thank you for the opporturuty to address the proposed landmark designation of our buildings
located at 417-475 College Avenue in Collegetown. The potential designation is a critical issue for our organization, as detailed
in the appended documentation of out previously-submitted communications to the ILPC and Planning Board. As such, fot
your review and consideration, I would like to cleady articulate our position on the matter and summarize the undedying facts
that we believe are most germane to the discussion.
As a nearly 125-vear-old not-for-profit organizatlon and Collegetown fxture, we certainlv understand and respect the
importance of presen,ation and proper stewardship of historic resources. However, w-e also bel-ier.e that presen'ation goals
need to be propedy balanced against communiry safety and development goals, and that reasonable standards need to be met
in order to adversell. affect owners' propertl'rights through landmark destgnation. With respect to 411-415 College Ave, we
feel very strongly that the atguments fot designation do not rise to the standard necessary to justify formal landmatk
designation. Particulatly when weighed against the inconsistencies of landmatk designation with the City's well
documented land use and economic uitality goals for Collegetown (as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and new
Collegetown zoning), and when weighed against the shott and long-tetm economic hatdships that a landmark
designation would pose to Student Agencies.
\X&ile additronal detail can be found in the appended documentation, we believe that the following facts are important for the
Planning Committee to understand and consider when evaluating the merits of the potential desrgnation:
Srudent Asencies: Backoround and Overview
. Student Agencies was founded in 1894, neaiy 20 years before the 417-415 buildings were built tn 1911 /1912.
o Student Agencies is a 501 (c) (3) educational not-for-profit organlzaion with a co-curricular experiential leaming mission
that involves teaching and ftaining college students to start and run businesses effectivel,v.
o We are independent from the University; and, thus, do not receive funding from the University. Nor do we
receive funding/gtants/etc. ftom any other outside sources.
o Our Collegetown buildings (409 College Ave. and 411,-415 College Ave.) serve as our endowment. In other
words, we use the income that we generate from those buildings as the sole funding source for our mission.
. Our 417-475 College Ave. buddings, speciFtcally, generate 70o/o of that mission funding.
o Student Agencies programs have a significant positive impact on )'oung people and the local community.
o On an annual basis, we employ nearly 300 students to manage and work in ou portfol-io businesses, and we
provide approximately $ 500,000 in annual compensation to those students. This makes us the second largest
employer of Cornell students behind the University itself.
o Each year, our el-ab progtam (a student business accelerator that we founded in 2008 in collaboration with
Entreprenewship at Cornell), supports the start-up of approximately 15 new student business, many which
remain in the local community and drive job growth and economic activitv (e.g. Rosie, RedRoute).
o Last year, we redeveloped two floors (10,000 sq. ft.) in our 409 College Avenue building to create eHub, open
collaboration/co-wotking space that is available 24/7 to students and the broader entaepreneurship community.
Currendy, there ate mote than 4,000 individual registered users of the eHub space.
o Student Agencies has a proven track record of dorng the tight thrng and contdbuting to our community.
o Despite our not-for-proFrt status, we pay more than $ 100,000 annually in properh, taxes
o While building eHub, we proactively sought-out City feedback and incorporated subsequent design change
suggestions at a si-x-figure cost to the project.
o Last sumner, we sponsored the Collegetown Pop-Up Park with both money and labor resources
S/rF
STUDENT AGENCIES FOUNOATION
41 l-415 Collese Ave: Prooertv Overview
o The buildings are more than a hundred years old and do not meet contemporary building and life safety standards,
particulady for residential student housing. Specifically, the w-ood frame and the hre suppression, electrical, and heating
systems are outdated and are only acceptable as they are 'gtandfatheted-in' to current code. We believe that this is a very
important safeq'issue that should not be forgotten when considering the future of the propefi.
o The fagade (stucco over clay tile), in particular, is in very poor condition and is separating ftom the r:,u'ood frame. In their
building conditions assessment dated August 2,2011 , Taitem Engineering concluded that the fagade "has reached the end
of its useful life". Further, Taitem estimated necessary fagade repais at $ 720,000, using just standard matedals. Materials
meant to comply with historic blends of stucco would likely be sigmhcantl)' -o." expensive.
o F'urther, while not recommended due to the condition of the facade, Edger Enterprises estimates that an'overbuild'
redevelopment attempt (repafuing the fagade and then building back and up from the fagade) would add "$ 1.5 to $ 2.0
million to the project costs and would result in a 6-month extension to the construction schedule". In addiuon, College
Ave would need to be closed for the duration of the project in order to accommodate the necessary fagade bracing.
o tWith one story of commercial space and two and a half stories of residential units, about half of the density encouraged b,v
the new Collegetown MU-2 zonrng, 411-415 College Ave. cutrently is clearly an underutilized property in a location where
the Comprehensive Plan's land use goals and economic r.italin goals call for redeveloping underutilired properties - both
for increased density and increased taxable value.
In short, the buildings need to be replaced. They were not designed or built to stand for this long, and they have reached the
end of their useful life, according to engineering and construction experts. Repainng the fagade and attempting an overbuild is
not recorunended due to the condition of the facade, nor would that approach be economically feasible for Student Agencies.
Moreover, even if a repat/overbuild approach were feasible, the end result would effectiveh' be the creation of a new fagade -
not the pteservation of the building's current fagade, as intended by the ILPC's landmarking recommendation.
With that said, we understand the prominence of 471-415 College Ave. and the importance of responsible redevelopment:
,/ We understand and agree that any redevelopment of the propern, needs to be sensitive to the architectural context of
Collegetown; including, consistent heights, cornice lines, fenestration patterns, slotting rhvthms, etc.
,/ We undetstand and agree that the outdoor space (the CTB patio) is important to the community, and we fully intend to
maintain and incorporate outdoor space into the design of any future development of the propern'.
'/ S7e are open to re-integrating important architecrutal elements from the current buildings (e.g. the lion's head, Greek
crosses, etc.) into the design of any future development of the propetl'.
r' As part of anl.future redevelopment, we have every intention of working collaborativelv with the Cin' and Universirl' to
develop a project for the gateu/ay to Collegetown from campus that everyone can be excited about.
We stand ready, willing and able to do the right thing tegarding tedevelopment 411-415 College Ave., and we ask for
your support in rciecting the proposed designation. Just as Council reiected the ILPC's recommendation to
landmark the Jane A. Delano Home back in 2010 due to the btoader planning and economic development concems,
we ask that you now reject the landmatk designation of 411-415 College Ave. for the same reason. Responsible
tedevelopment, not landmarking, bettet serves the intetests of the community and has overwhelming community
support, as demonstrated by the neady 60 community letters wdtten in support of our position.
Thank you for vour careful consideration of our position regarding this matter.
Sincerelr',
/{/L* te
Kyle Karnes
Chief Executive Officer
Student Agencies
Owner Gommunications Regarding Potential Landmark Designation of
411-415 College Avenue
Stafernenfs and Letters Provided to the lthaca Landmarks Preservation Committee and Planning &
Development Board
Table of Contents
Executive Summary dated 7 13117
Letter submitted prior to the first lthaca Landmarks
Preservation Committee meeting, which took place on
July 11th
Statement dated 8/8/17
Statement read and submitted at the second lthaca
Landmarks Preseruation Committee meeting on August 8th
Lefter dated 8115117
Letter submitted prior to the first Planning and Development
Board meeting, which took place on August 22nd
Statement dated 81 221 17
Statement read and submitted at the first Planning and
Development Board meeting on August 22nd
Statement dated 9 I 261 17
Statement read and submitted at the second Planning
and Development Board meeting, which took place on
September 26th
First lthaca Landmarks Preservation
Committee Meeting
Executive Summary
7/3/17
SArF
SIUOEN I AgENCIES FOUITIOATIOT.I
)luly 3,2o17
Iiryan McCrackcn
Histnric Prcscn ation Planncr
Ciq'of lthaca, Planning Division
Dear Bryan,
On behalf of Student Agcncies, thank you for the opportuniry to engage in an open and meaningful
discussion with the Ithaca l.andmerks Prcservation Commission (LPC) rcgarding rhe potential designation
of our propcrty at 41 1 -41 5 College Avenue as an individual local landmark. As a neady 725-year old not-
fot-profit organization and communiry membcr, we certainly understand ancl rcspect thc importance of
prescrvation and propcr stcwardship of historical enrirjcs. At the same time, though, we also fccl that it is
impomant that preselation initiatives be propcrly balanced with broader community olriectives and take
into considctrtion thc porentinl impect on properry owners,
With that in mind, and with the help of nunrerous consultants, architccts, historians, and cnginecrs, we have
$pent a considcrable amount of timc rncl cncr6;y over thc parit few weeks educating oursclvcs on thc
landmarking proccss and researching thc propcrty from both an architccturel ancl historical perspective.
Having now cornpleted that rvork, and after cerefully wcighing our findings against tlrc ILITC,'s arguments
for designation, as outlincd in the Hietoric Resource lnvcntory Forrn, rvc fccl *ttongly that thc
atguments for dcsignatlon do not rlac to the standatd neccesary to jttctify e formel designation.
Particularly when wcighed againat the ehott and long-rcrm herdshlp that a designation would posc
to Student Agenciee given out llmited rcso.rrccs, and particulaily coneidcdng that a lenclmark
deslgnetlon would bc wholly inconsietent wtth the Collcgetown land urc and economlc vitallty
goals as outlincd in the Citt's Comptehenelvc Plan end new Collegetovn zoning,
C)ur specific erguments against dcsignation rre demiled in this letter and research report, which rve submit
fcrr thc puryoses of the record, To summatize, howcven
a Thc atguments fot dcsignation do not risc to the sundard neccssary n lustify a listing
o ()ur reseafch docs not support the idea that the owncr was historically sign'Fcant
o C)ur research docs not support thc idea that rhe designer was historically signiticant
o Our rescarch does not support the idea thar 41 1-415 Collcge Avc is a unique representation
of a historically significant period in the history of Collegetorvn
o Our research found aignificant isoues rvith thc extcrior finish, calling into question the
historical integriry of the fagade
Designation twuld crcetc a short and longactm hardehlp for Student Agencles
o 'fhe income from 411-415 gencrates 70Yo of the rnission funding f<rr the organizarion
o The opporrunity cost of designation is estjmated to be $ 8.5 million
o Repairing thc fagedc to cxtcnd its scrviceable life would requirc significant investrnent
o .,\ccording to experts, mainaining and building arountl the f-aqacle (i.e. an overbuild) would
add t 1.5 - $ 2.0 miltion ro the projcct cost and would result in a 6-month extension to thc
schcdule
Designation would not be consistent with the City Comprchensivc Plan and ncv
Coltegetown zoning
a
I
a
S/rF
SIUDENT AGENCIEs FOUNOAIION
o Redevelopment without designation, howevcr, rvould be consistent rvith thc goals of the
Comprchensive Plan and ncw zoning; in particular, thc housing dcnsiry and cconomic
vitaliry goals
Regarding the argumente for declgnation epecllically, wc bclicve that they arc vcry weak on thcir
ovn merits, In short, thc nrain argumcnts for designation are: 1) thc <rriginnl owner of the buildings, John
Chacona, rvas a historically significant locel ligure, 2) rhe architcct,John lfilgus, rvas a historically significant
local architcct, 3) the buildings rcpresent a period of time in Collegetown whe n boarcling houses rvere
transitir.rning to npartment buildings, and 4) the buildings are a good examplc of eady rwenticth-century
Rcnaissancc Rcvivd srylc,
With respect to John Chacotra, we lrave completed exhausdve research of l<rat records, including
ncwspapcr and flistory Ccntcr records, end the only meaninglul mention oftohn Checona that
we could find v$ in his wife'c obituary thet rcferenced the fect thet hc predcceesed hcr,
ltJ(/ith rcspcct to John Wilgus, our research did indicate that he was ar1 active locrl architect, known
as much for dcsigning homes as bui.ldings. The most interesfing thing that wc discovcrcd about Mr.
Wilgus, rhough, rvas the fact that the 2/10/15 resolution that crcatecl rhc Wcsr State Histodc
District, rvhich includes a \Wilgus properry, stated, "l)er crireria #4, :ma;ny of tlre propertics within
thc clistrict erc represcntetive rvorks of dcsigncrs whose works have significantly influenced an rge.
The district conraios houses designecl by early Ithaca architect A.B. Dale and Cornell-trained
architects A.B, Wnod snd Arthur Gibb," No mendon of Wilgus. T'lrat, of course, suggesrs an
obvious question, How can lt bc ergued now that Mr. Wilgus is a hietorically-signilicent
dceigner when he wsl not deemad e historlcally-slgnilicant deeigner nvo yeate ago?
With respect to idea thet rhc 41 1-415 CoUege Ave buildings represent a historically significant
period irr Collegetorvn (i.e. the transition fronr boarding lrouses to aPartmcnt lrouses and the
devclcrpmcnt of Collcgctown as a neighborhood independent of downtrrwrt ltlraca), our rcscatch
iodlcatee that therc erc at least aevcn Q) othet buildinge in Collegetovn that wcrc built
duilng the eamc perlod, rcplacing woocl-hemed houaes with 3-4 story epartment buildingc
wlth commerclal epece oh the eueet level. Three of thcm (402, 414 and 426 Eddy Street), ln
fact, arc alrcady listcd in the East Hill Historic Disttict,
F'inally, with respcct to the idea that thc buildiogs arc a good cxample of early twcntieth-century
Renaissance Revival style, an asecslmcnt conducted by Eltee tohnson-Schmidt, a prceewatlon
architcct ftom Comlng, ldentlllcd lesucc wlth the cunent textured stucco cxtefior llnlsh thet
rnakce het t'qucstian thc inrcgrtry of the wall llnieh aad windowe" and concludc "that both
the vindows and {agade linish havc been teplaccdt'. As she points out in her report} "I{ed the
builder's Greck hcritage influcncecl the usc of stucco for the faEade finish, I would have cxpected a
cleeper window-planc-to-faqade-finish-plane than wtrat is seen here, as well as a much m<-rre massive
wall appcarance that rrhat exists today."
a
a
a
liflhile we believc that dre arguments for dcsignation do not meet the standard fcrr designation on their own
merits, the "thinness" of the arguments becomes cvcn more problematic whcn considering the importance
of the buildings to Student Agencies' not-for-profit mission and dre hardship that a listing would pose to
the organization. This is duc to Student Agencies'uniquc funding model, As an educatiooal oot-for-profit
otganization, completely independent of the University, Srudent Agencies does not reccivc any marerial
funding from thc Universiry, alumni, grants, or any other source. Our sole source of funcling, which we usc
2
a
SArF
SlUPENI A6ENCIES FOUNOATION
to fund our mission, comcs fronr thc nct incomc that wc can Beneratc front our thrce buildings in
Collcgetorvn; and, the trvo buildiogs uncler cnnsideration for designation, 41 l-415 Collcgc Avc, generate
approximately 70o/o of that incomc. 'l'hus, given that highcat uee analysis suggests that a nev, building
design at Just 80% lot coverage could add as much as iln additional i4r000 sqi;arc feet, at $ 250/aq.
ft., the apponunity coet of deelgnetlng 411-415 College Ave, our lergest and prirnary esset fot
hnding our miseion, would be about $ 8.5 million,
In other words, 411-415 CoIIege Ave is Student Agencics'singlc biggest asset and dircctly gcncratcs
70Yo of our miseion funding, So, whilc we ere not contpletely focused on nrsxirnizing thc economic
rc,tutns of the buildings and arc v,illing to fotcgo somc economic return for other mlssion-rclated
benefitt (e,g. maintaining outdoot gatheting Bpace fttr the community), we fcar that tha staggering
opportunlty cosrr aesociated with e landmatk dcsignation woulcl eignificanily reetrict our ability to
cxecutc end grov our mission fot thc next hundrcd ycars.
The issue is not iust one of opportunity cost, though. We have spoken to many local orvncrs ancl
clevelopers who have gone rhrough the dcsignation process! and wc have consultcd rvith various engineers
and architccrs on thc topic <lf an ovcrbuild - aclding to the prcperry while maintaining the origrnal building
- and evcry person independcndy confirmed to us that developing the property under designatir.,n *,ould be
significandy mrrre expensive and signilicandy more time-consuming than redo'cloping thc properry without
a landmadc designation. Thc simplc truth is that, as a small indepcndent not-fcrr-profit r.rrga,nization, we
simply do not have the financiel or hunran resourccs to bear the addidonal costs of designation.
Morc specifically, a dcsignation rvould put Studcnr Agencics in a very tough spot. Wc arc alrcady spending
oearly $ 50,000 annually to maintain thc buildings end rve knorv that the bui.lclings, particulady drc shared
fagade, are in cxtremely poor condition. As oudined in the structural reports from Taitem Engineering and
Morse Proiect Management, iust rcpairing thc fagade to extcnd its oerviceable life would require significant
investment. And, according to Iidger Enterprise's assessmcnt, while maintaining and building around the
fngade (i.e . an overlruild) rvould not be recommended given tlre condition of thc fagacle, if were to bc
attempted, it would "add $ 1.5 to $ 2.0 million dollars to dre projecr cost and would rcsulr in a 6-month
extension to the construction schsdule." 'fhus, encmpting an ovetbuild uncler a de*ign*tion would not
be economicelly viable fot Student Agencice given our limited rcsolrtces, ,tot would
rcdevelopmcnt and simply rcpabing and maintaining the cuncnt buildingc in pcrpetuity.
frirrally, l', sccrns vety clcar to us that a landmark dceignation of 411-415 Collcgc Avc would hc
completely inconsistcnt with goals and objectivca of thc Clty'e Comprchensive Plan and new
Collcgetown zoning ln rctme of lncrcaclng density and cconotnic vitallty in Collcgctown.
Redevelopment, horvevet, in the form of a ncw sustainable building that is deslgnecl rvith scnsitiviry to rhe
surrounding environment, but rvhich meem modern safery codes and ADA regulations, rveiuld l>e extrcmely
consistcnt with goals and objecdvcs of the Comprehcnsive I'lan and ncw Collcgctown zoning. It rvould
creatc much-necded higher densiry housing in the lrcart of Collegctorvn, which rvould help to offset the
supply/dcmanci imbalence and lorvet housing prices. It wnuld creatc more economic vitality in
Collegetown, increasing the existing cu$tomer basc for local n'rcrchants and pcrhaps attracting other desired
businesscs to the neighl:orhood, while incrensing the amount rlf properry tax paid. Moreovcr, it woul<t meet
sustainability goals by replacing an energy-grcedy dinosaur btrilding, powered by naoral gas, with a nerv
energy-efficient buiJding built to modern standards. It is our view that this would bc bcttcr and safer for the
studenr residents, mote atractive to rhe local mctchants, and better for the cornmunity as a whole.
3
SArtr
SIUDENT AGENCIFS FOUNOATION
In summary, vhilc wc apptcciatc the goals of pteservation, we do not Euppott a lendmark
designation o( our buildings et 411-415 College Avc. Wc believe that thc ,ttgurncnts fot deaignation
erc very thin, and wc bclicvc that a designation would pose significant hardship for Stuclcnt
Agenciee in both thc ehott and long-tcrm, Designation, in our view, would also be inconsistent
with the gtals end objectives of the City's Comprchcnsive Plan and ncw Collcgctown zoning.
$flith that said, lrorvever, I would like to point out drat Srudcnt Agencies has a proven track record of not
only bcing a valuable contfibutor to the communiry for nearly 725 years; but, has also demonstrated an
openness and rvillingness to work collaboradvdy with the Ciry and other communiry srakeholders. For
example, while designing the eHub space last year, we met with City rcprcsentntivcs carly in the design
process and adoptecl (at a six-figurc cost) significant dcsign changes thet were 1>roposed. !(hether it be our
conscions decision to pay property taxcs despitc beitrg a not-for-profit cntity, nradc in thc spirit of
ptioritizing being a goo<l community member and paying our fair sharcl or, rvhether it be suppordng the
local community last summer by sponsoring and funding the pop-up park in Oollcgptorvn, we ahveys strive
to be not only good stcrvatds of the Srudcnt Agencies legacy; but, a str<lng contributing comnrunity member
as well.
It is in that spirit tlrat we rcquclt that the landmatk designation ot411-415 Collcge Ave be relccted.
Instead, we encouruge the City to work collahoratively vith ue as we devclop a tedcvclopmcnt plan
for thc ptopercy that all stakcholden - Studcnt Agencles, the Clty, Collagetorn merchants and
rcsidenta, Cornell - can bc proud af, Particularly given the strong dcsign rcvicw proccsses alrcady .in
placc with thc Planning tsoard and staff, rvc believc that this epproach is the only via[:le path fonvard for
Studcnt Agencics and would result in the best possiblc outcorne for thc Ciry and lucal Colleget<rrvn
communiry.
Fot your revierv, rvc have caprurcd thc details of our research and findings in thc attached four-part
summary. Thc t'irst part provides background on the mission and scopc of Sttrdent Agcncies, including the
imporunce of 4l 1-415 College Ave as our maior ssset ancl solc sourcc o[ mission funding. Thc second part
includes infotmation on the condition of the buildings in order to better undersrand thc costs and
complexitics of repairing and/ or maintaining a hismrically dcsignated building in pcrpctuiry. The thitd part
oudincs the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Collegetown l?nrm Districts Codc, and
maps the consistcncy of redevelopment of 411-415 Collcgc Ave to those goals and ob,iectives. And, finally,
part four addresscs the *pccific histcrrical dcsignation arguments as outlined in the Flistoric Resource
Invcntory Form.
Also, pleasc note the Appcndix, whcrc we heve compilcd thc roughly 60 comnrunity support lettcts that we
have received from various stakeholders; inctuding, Collegetown mcrchants ancl residents, Comcll partncrs
and Stradent Agencies alumni.
Please fect free to contact me ditecdy if you have any questions cooccrning the docurne nt. Otherwise,
again, drank you for your flcxibiliry throughout this process and thank you for your careful consideration of
our position corrccrning this mattcr.
Sincerely,
Kfa *. *,e
I$e Karnes
Chief Bxecutive Officer
Student Agencies
4
Second lthaca Landmarks Preservation
Gommittee Meeting
Statement
8/8/17
Statement from Student Agencies to the lthaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
ILPC Hearing - 08/08/2017
On behalf of Student Agencies, thank vou fot the opportunity to extcnd the cliscussion rvith the Ithaca
Landmarks Presen'ation Commission (ILPC) regarding the potential designation of our properw ^t 171-
41 5 College Avenuc as an individual local landmark.
The additional month has afforded us the opportunity to further engage our engineering consultant,
Taitem Engineering, in a deeper building conditions study to better understand the cost implications of
a potential designauon. That work, as oudined in their report dated August 2,201,7, revealed additional
concerns that may impact the appropriateness of 41,1-41,5 College Avenue for designation. In particular,
Taitem's report concluded that the fagade, made up of stucco over clay tile, "has reached the end of its
useful life." The clay tiles ^re "yery britde" and have separated from the wood framing of the building,
and the stucco itself shows numerous ctacks and separations from the clay tile, allowing moisrure to
intrude. Taitem estimates the repair of the fagade would cost upwards of $720,000. That estimate
assumes the use of standard materials, not materials meant to comply with historic blends of stucco,
which could be significandy more expensive. In addition, there is question about whethet the brittle clay
tile would withstand such a restoration and whether the community would support the closure of
College Avenue for the length of time necessary for the restoradon of the fagade.
As a neady 125-year old not-for-profit organization and community member, we certainly understand
and respect the importance of preservation and proper stewardship of historically significant entities. At
the same time, though, we feel that the attempt to apply a historic designation to 11,1,-41,5 is asking for
designation of a building whose fagade could only be saved through economically infeasrble measures.
We are also troubled by the fact that the potential historic designation prioritizes the building and what
it represents over the historic and cultutal importance of Student Agencies. Unfortunately, as an
independent not-for-profit orgarizadon, not connected to Cornell nor supported by grant funding,
taking this prioritization approach risks a long-term contraction in our mission funding and services. As
we have pointed out previously, our mission is dependent on the rents generated from our properties,
and70o/o of that mission funding come specifically from income generated by 111-475 College Avenue.
To create a designation which would require costly repairs or limit our ability to redevelop the property
would create a signiFrcant hardship for our orgarizatton and would have a direct negative impact on our
mission for the next 125 years.
Finally, we understand that the aesthetic harmony of the block is driven by factors including the
consistent height of the ground floor brick base story, the upper stories of complimentarv heights, a
consistent fenestration pattern, light earth tones for the upper portions of the buildings, and the narrow
slots between the buildings providing rhythm. Student Agencies would like the ILPC and the public to
consider that a redevelopment of the site could contribute to the excellence of this urban block through
deliberate design references to those characteristics, while providing housing for more people in a
building desrgned to contemporary safety codes and lthaca's environmental standards.
Thank you for your time.
/4L* /,*
I(yle I{arnes
CEO, Student Agencies
First Planning and Development Board
Meeting
Letter
8/1 5/17
SAF
STUOENT AGENCIES FOUT.IDATION
August t5, 2Ot7
Lisa Nicholas
City of lthaca Planning and Development Board
Dear Ms. Nicholas,
I am writing this letter to express our strong belief that 4tt-+15 College Avenue does not rise to the standard necessary
to justifr formal landmark designation, that restricting redevelopment of the building by landmark designation would be
wholly inconsistent with the City of lthaca's vision for the frrture of Collegetown, and that landmark designation of the
building would pose a severe long-term hardship on our not-for-profit organization.
With respect to the merits of the historical justifications for landmarking, our position is clear. As a not-for-profit
organization that dates back to 1894, we certainly understand and agree with the importance of presewing history.
However, we believe that a reasonable standard should be met in order to adversely affect an owner's property rights
with a landmark designation. ln this particular case, we believe that the ILPC's arguments for designation are weak at
best, and certainly do not rise to the level necessary to justi! landmark designation; particularly when weighed against
the inconsistencies of a landmark designation with the City's development goals, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
and new Collegetown zoning, and the significant long-term hardship that a landmark designation would pose to Student
Agencies. For more detail on this subject, please see the attached letter that we submitted to Bryan McCracken and the
ILPC on ]uly 3'd, prior to the ILPC hearing on July tl'h.
With respect to the alignment of a landmark designation with the City's development goals, following are summaries of
the two sections from our luly 3'd detailed report to the ILPC (see link from Planning Staff) examining the potential
landmark designation of 4tt-4t5 College Avenue in the context of the City of lthaca Comprehensive Plan and zoning as
expressed in S AzS-+S Collegetown Area Form District.
Summaly of Part 3, Section A: Alignment with City of lthaca Comprehensive Plan
We considered 4tt-4t5 College Avenue in relation to the seven categories in the Comprehensive Plan: Public
Participation and Communication, Land Use Goals, Economic Vitality, Community Livability, Mobility and
Transportation, Natural & Cultural Resources, Sustainable Energy, Water, and Food Systems. The designation
would be in alignment with the preservation goal under Natural and Cultural Resources. However, a
redevelopment of the site could be in alignment with every other goal of the Comprehensive Plan, not just one.
Public Participation and Communication: We recently undertook the redevelopment of 4o9 College Avenue to
make room for the new eHub space. As part of that process, we communicated regularly and took input,
formally and informally, from various City and community stakeholders. ln fact, based on the input that we
received, we opted to re-envision the front fagade of 4o9 College Avenue. Similarly, if we have the opportunity
to redevelop 4ll-415 College Avenue, we look forward to another set of open design discussions that will lead to
a great design for a building that everyone can be proud of to anchor this prominent corner.
Land Use Goals: Redevelopment of the site in question would align with the goal of addressing a "strong unmet
demand for more urban living opportunities. Connected, compact mixed-use developments that offer financial,
environmental, and quality of life benefits can accommodate this unmet demand and prepare us for firture
growth" and acknowledges that accommodating growth in Collegetown will largely be a matter of seeking out
"opportunities for redevelopment, including surface-level parking lots and many underutilized properties." A
new mixed-use building, in this prime location, built to contemporary environmental and with significantly more
square footage and a significantly higher taxable value aligns extremely well with this goal.
SArF
STUDENI AGENCIES FOUNDATION
We contend that 4ll-415 College Avenue is underutilized. lt currently has ground floor commercial space and
two to three floors of apartments housing 29 tenants. A sensitive redevelopment could create accessible
housing for double or triple that number of tenants while maintaining ground floor commercial space and the
outdoor space that is so popular.
Economic Vitality Goals: This section considers the close relationship between housing and
economic vitality, "By providing more housing and attracting a larger population, we will expand the tax base
while offering more people the opportunity to live within the city... Appropriate compact, mixed-use
development will provide significant new development opportunities while preserving the character of our
established residential neighborhoods."
The Plan also looks for opportunities to "capture new business growth within the city, including high-technology
and knowledge-based businesses and manufacturing. We will foster an environment that attracts and retains
businesses and employers that create well-paying local jobs that enable people to live within the city."
Student Agencies' not-for-profit mission aligns very well with the City's economic development goals: we
operate, nurture and grows businesses; we expand local employment and provide jobs at many skill levels; we
support the development of a wide variety of new businesses, sponsoring about 15 new student start-up
businesses each year with capital investment and office space; and we employ nearly 3oo students each year,
helping them offset their education expenses. Landmark designation would directly and negatively impact our
ability to continue and expand these activities.
Summary of Part 3, Section B: Alignment with Zoning as Expressed in S 325-45 Collegetown Area Form District
This zoning document, adopted in 2014, sets out five intentions for the development of Collegetown. While there
is nothing about a landmark designation of the building that would contradict zoning, we strongly contend that
redevelopment would be in much stronger alignment with the form-based district than presewation.
lntent (t) Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality constnrction: 4tt-4t5 was
constructed using stucco over hollow clay tile, commonly used as a cheap alternative to brick in l9ll. The ILPC
contends that the building is steel-framed. This is inaccurate. Structurally, the building is composed of a
combination of wood framing and hollow structural tile, with some steel support posts in the basement. Only
the recent addition to the back of the building is steel-framed. According to a recent Taitem Engineering report,
the clay tile has separated from the wood framing, indicating a lack of structural integrity of the fagade. They
indicate the clay tile has reached the end of its serviceable life. While the fagade could be saved through extreme
measures, the cost would be economically infeasible for us and would require closing the sidewalk and partially
or fully closing College Avenue for the duration of the repair (broadly estimated at 6 months to one year).
While, at the time of construction, the use of clay tile was considered an improvement in fire safety, the building
falls far short of contemporary fire safety standards. A number of the units have been retrofitted or added on
to, with some relying on granted variances to establish bedrooms where window sizes (light and air
requirements) cannot be met. Clearly, the current building is not, and was never, high-quality construction.
Under redevelopment, we would demand high-quality construction and follow design cues from the established
street wall to bring an exceptional building to the site.
lntent (z) Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between districts:
MU-2 cannot be a transitional district, since there is no district denser than it.
2
S^rF
STUOENi AGENCIES FOUNDATION
lntent (3) Concentrate additional developmmt in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of
the established residential neighborhoods: Landmark designation will preclude significant development. On the
other hand, redevelopment to the extent that the Form District allows could double or triple the number of
potential residents at 411-415 College Avenue. This type of efficient redevelopment aligns well with the intent to
augment growth in central areas with the hope of relieving pressure on residential areas.
lntent (4) Presewe and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of
the urban environment; and
The existing property at 4ll-415 College Avenue includes an outdoor eating area at the northern portion of the
property. While it is not a traditional green space, it is well appreciated by the community as an outdoor
space. lnterestingly, designation of the building would not be a productive means of protecting this outdoor
space at all, as the ILPC has made clear that historical designation only affects the {iont face of the building, not
the side or rear. We understand how deeply appreciated that outdoor space is and sees it as a great asset to
preserve as part of any redevelopment effort. ln fact, we see redevelopment of the site as an opportunity to
maintain but reimagine the outdoor space to better address the relationship between the building and the
sidewalk, in order to greatly improve the overall aesthetics and flow of the corner.
lntent (5) Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of modes of transportation
other than single-occupancy automobiles.
The location of the building is the most desirable off-campus building in terms of walkability to
campus. Designation would not change that, but would limit the number of tenants who could take advantage
of the location. As discussed, redevelopment would greatly increase the number of tenants who could be housed
at this prime location. More people housed in a walkable location reduces the need for reliance on vehicles.
With respect to the impact on our organization, we firmly believe that a landmark designation would create a significant
hardship for our organization. As outlined in the attached letter, we are an independent not-for-profit organization that
is not formally connected to Cornell nor supported by grand funding. lnstead, funding for our mission is solely
dependent on the rental income that we can generate from our properties, and 7oo/o of that rental income comes from
4tt-4t1 College Ave. Thus, a landmark designation, which would limit our ability to redevelop the property and require
significant fagade rehabilitation investments, would have a direct negative impact on our ability to fund and grow our
mission for the next hundred years.
Finally, in the spirit of openness and transparenry, I should note that we recently asked Holt Architects to provide a
preliminary massing, materials, and context study to explore how a new building on the site could express the very
factors that make the block a great one: t) buildings that present roughly the same height, 2) a ground floor brick base
story, 3) light earth-tones upper stories and a slot between buildings 4) direct design references to older buildings such
as horizontal elements, fenestration pattern, fagade organization, and design features. We look forward to sharing and
discussing some of these materials with the Planning and Development Board on August 22nd.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions regarding
this letter.
Sincerely,
/4,L *. /4^.^-4-
Chief Executive Officer
Student Agencies
3
First Planning and Development Board
Meeting
Statement
8/2417
Statement from Student Agencies to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Boatd
08/22/2017
On behalf of Student Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to address the potential landmark designation of our
propertv ^t 41.1.-415 College Avenue, as recommended by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC).
Out position on this matter has been well documented, including letters, reports and statements dated July 3"r,
August 8'r', and August 15'L; so, I will not go into great detail here. Instead, I will bdefly summarize by saying that
we do not agree at all with the ILPC that the historical and architectural arguments for designation rise to the
standard necessary to justifi, designation, we do not believe that a landmatk designation would be consistent with
the City's planning and economic development objectives, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and new
Collegetown zoning, and we ^re very concerned that designation would create significant short and long-term
economic hardship for our orgatization This last point being particularly germane given that we generate 70o/o of
our educational not-for-profit mission funding from the buildings in question.
In short, a designation would put us in a very difficult spot. We already invest neadv $ 50,000 annually to maintain
our properties, and these buildings, particulady the shared fagade, are in very poor condition. As Taitem
Engineering concluded in their structural report, the fagade, made up of stucco over clay tile, "has reached the end
of its useful life". Specifically, the clay tiles ate "very brittle" and have separated from the wood framing of the
building, and the stucco itself shows numerous cracks and separations from the clay tile allowing moisture to
intrude, calling into question whether the brittle clay tile and stucco could even withstand restoradon.
According to the Taitem report, if attempted, simply repairing the fagade would cost upwards of $720,000. Further,
according to an estimate from Edger Enterprises, while maintaining and building around the faEade (i.e. an
overbuild) would not be recommended given the condition of the fagade, if it were to be attempted as part of an
overbuild, it would add $ 1.5 to $ 2.0 million dollars to the project cost and would result in a 6-month extension to
the project schedule. It would also require College Avenue to be closed for the duration of the project.
Thus, attempting an overbuild under a designation would not be economically viable given our limited
resources, nor would foregoing redevelopment and simply maintaining the current buildings in perpetuity.
We hope that it is not the case that the authoriry to landmark this property is being used as a preventative measure
for potential redevelopment of this property. This site is one of the most important properties in the entire Ciry,
and certainly in Collegetown. What we, and this board, have before us, are two alternatives: for this building to be
listed - with the inherent need to rebuild, and the detrimental impact that it would have on Student Agencies - as
opposed to the potenual that new construction on-site could have, as guided by good urban principles, an
understanding of the architectural context of the neighborhood, and other goals as described in the City's
Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning. We trust the design review and approvals process to do its job
in guiding any potential new development at this site to be the best fit for this area.
With all of that said, and in the spirit of openness and transparency, we thought it might be helpful to use our time
today to discuss how we are thinking about a potential redevelopment of the ptoperty. So, we have asked Steve
Hugo from Holt Architects and Scott \Thitham from Whitham Planning & Design to ioin us and present some of
the initial studies that we have completed. I encourage you to ask Steve and Scott any questions, as our goal today is
to openly and honestly communicate our intentions regarding the future ol 471-415 College Ave.
I would now like to turn it over to Scott and Steve. Thank you for your time.
/t *. /-,, -e-
Kyle Karnes
CEO, Student Agencies
Second Planning and Development
Board Meeting
Statement
9/26/17
S/rF
STUOENT AGENCIES FOUNDATION
Statement from Student Agencies to the City of Ithaca Planning Board
September 26,2017
As the owner of 4l l-415 College Avenue, we feel strongly that historic designation of the buildings would be
inconsistent with the City's goals for Collegetown, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Collegetown zoning.
and Collegetown lJrban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines. With one story of commercial space and two
and a half stories of residential units. about half of the density encouraged by the new Collegetown zoning.4l l-
415 College Ave is clearly an underutilized property in a location wherethe Cornprehensive Plan's land use
goals and economic vitality goals call for redeveloping underutilized properties - both for increased density and
increased taxable value.
Even more importantly. though, the current 100+ year-old structures not only fall far short of "exceptional
urban design and high-quality construction". as called for by the Collegetown Area Form District, they also fall
short of contemporary building and life safety standards, particularly for residential student housing. The wood
frame of the buildings (not steel frame. as assefted during the ILPC hearings) and the fire suppression,
electrical. and heating systems are outdated and have been "grandfathered-in" to current code due to the age of
the buildings.
As a historic entity itself, Student Agencies respects preservation of historic resources as an important
community goal. Unfortunately. in the case of the 4ll-415 buildings" the stucco and clay tile structure was
never designed to last over a century. Engineering studies of the buildings by Taitern Engineering and Edger
Enterprises have confirmed that the fagade of the buildings is separating from the wood frame and is at the end
of its serviceable life. If designated. significant repairs would be required, potentially even a virtual rebuild. For
the city, that would mean the closure of at least part of College Avenue for the duration of the repairs (in
addition to the loss of higher tax revenues that a redeveloped propefty would generate). For Student Agencies.
it would strike a grave financial blow, requiring at least $720,000 just to repair the fagade, according to Taitem
Engineering. Further, if we were to attempt to repair and maintain the fagade as part of an "overbuild". it would
add $ l.5million to $ 2million to the project costs and add six months to the project schedule. according to
Edger Enterprises.
Student Agencies would like to move forward with redeveloping the property and contends that a
redevelopment, respectful of the architectural context of Collegetown and built to contemporary building and
safety standards, would be wholly consistent with the City's goals and vision for the future of Collegetown:
whereas, historic designation would significantly jeopardize the future of our organization, a 123 year-old
educational not-for-profit with a long and proven history of contributing to the community. In short, we are
ready, willing and able to do the right thing. ln order to do so. we ask for the Planning Board's support.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
/<.* *. /a--".-4-
Kyle Karnes
CEO. Student Agencies
Back-Up lnformation for ltem 10.3
JOHNSON-SCHMIDT, ARCH ITECT, PC
1 5 E. MARKE*r ST., # 2O2
CORNING, NY 1 4A3O
607.937.1 e46 ff)
607 .937 .61 37 (F)
WWW. PRES ERVATI O NARCH IT ECTS. CO M
October 10,2017
lt/r. Bryan lt/cCracken
H istoric Preservation Planner
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
City Hall, 108 East Green Street, 3'd Floor
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Letter of Support for 411-415 College Avenue, lthaca (Chacona Block)
Dear [Vr. lVcCracken,
As a preservation architect specializing in downtown commercial revitalization, and as a Cornell
University alumna, I would like to express my support for the Chacona Block located a|411-415
College Avenue in lthaca, NY to be designated as an individual landmark, and for its
rehabilitation. This building ls situated on a prominent corner in the Collegetown neighborhood,
adjacent to the Cornell University campus, and has been a favorite spot enjoyed by Cornellians
for over 100 years (myself includedl). The Chacona Block serves an important function as a
mixed-use commercial and residential building that caters to both residents and Cornell
students alike, and has a compelling history with regard to the development of Cornell's Student
Agencies. Designed by local architect John M. Wilgus for successful businessman John N.
Chacona, a Greek immigrant who owned a very popular chain of confectionary and ice cream
shops in lthaca, the Chacona Block is a unique example of the symbiotic relationship enjoyed
between the commercial heart of Collegetown and the Cornell campus. The building is a good
example of Renaissance Revival commercial architecture, and although the stucco finish has
been added to over the years and is in need of removal and replacement, the building is in no
danger of falling down - in fact, due to the extent of historic fabric still intact within the structure,
it would be an excellent candidate for a rehabilitation project. This would ensure that the
Chacona Block continues to serve as a contributing resource to the vibrant Collegetown
neighborhood and would preserve its rich history.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project for the City of lthaca.
Sincerely
a, .r
Principal
nson-Schmidt, AIA
@
I
II
.' ,"i1:1. .r1 ; - ,
r-_l r" I
I ril., I
,. j
Comments in support of the designation of the Chacona Block https ://mail.cityohthaca.orgiowa,/?ae:ltem&t:IPM.Note& id-RgA...
Comments in suppoft of the designation of the Chacona Block
MTomlan@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, October |L,2017 5:21 AM
To: Bryan McCracken; jschroeder@cornellsun.com; sara@historicithaca.org; christine@historicithaca.org
Hello all,
The following, sent to all committee and other council members and the mayor, are too lengthy for the public
comment period and in the midst of the budget season. I tried to address some of the surrounding issues members
were having trouble with at last week's council meeting. See you tonight, with . . . hope? . . . trepidation? . , .
forboding? . . .
Mary
lwill begin my comments of support for landmarks designation of the Chacona Block by echoing and underlining the
points made in the nomination form, the lthaca Landmarks Preservation Commission resolution and the materials
you have received from Historic lthaca-namely how the Chacona Block exemplifies the late 19th and early 20th
century building type that replaced the frame boarding house as a Collegetown icon-with residential flats above
commercial establishments, a type built first on Eddy Street and then up on College Avenue; and the Chacona
Block's significance as the enterprise of, and its design as the expression of, a Greek-American confectioner, one of
the earliest of various families from Greece who would build up businesses in Collegetown over the ensuing century
and beyond.
I would also like to emphasize another aspecf of the property's historic significance. Whether we talk about the
Larkin Building, designated at last week's Common Council meeting, the Chacona Block or Sheldon Court across
College Avenue to the west, each of these three early twentieth century buildings bears the name of a person or of
family members who not only had the building erected but did so in part to house their own commercial enterprise
-groceries in the case of the Larkin brothers, the confectionary shop owned by John N. Chacona and subsequently
operated at times by family members, and the Triangle Book Shop, of which Charles L. Sheldon, Jr. was the
proprietor. This pattern that linked street-level commercial establishments with real estate development is one very
different from most of the construction we see today in Collegetown. (Perhaps the closest modern parallel is the
Student Agencies building at 409 College Avenue which serves, I believe, on its upper floors, this enterprise that has
long worked from various Collegetown locations.) Though there may be more exceptions downtown, developers of
the late 20th and 21st century generally have no presence on the street and, in fact, may not even be located in
Ithaca. The historic pattern of linking real estate and commercial enterprise is, I hold, a significant aspect of the
Chacona Block.
I would like, now, to make three points concerning landmark designation. Frrsf, I do not believe that an owner's
argument that the building is too deteriorated should lead to a decision against designation. ln addition to being
irrelevant to historlc significance, conceding to such an argument is tantamount to rewarding limited maintenance
and pride of place, not something we want to reward in this city with a great pride of place.
Second, I would like to distinguish between considering the designation of a property for which no demolition and
replacement plans were presented publicly prior to its landmark review, and considering the designation of a
property for which the redevelopment review process was well under way. The latter instance is represented by the
current project for the redevelopment of the site of The Nines, which establishment occupies conjoined former fire
stations (No. 9). Although I beiieve in its historic significance and would regret its passing, I could not now support
the introduction of a proposal to designate that property, since it has been on the agenda of three planning board
meetings. (l did express my wish that the older portion be retained and preserved on another site.) With regard to the
Chacona Block, however, there was no proposed redevelopment of the site on the table through its active
consideration by the ILPC, and it was only after the ILPC vote and at the August meeting of the Planning and
Development Board that the owner's representative had introduced very general schematics for such
redevelopment.
Finally, based on the discussion about designation that took place at last week's council meeting, I would like to
present what may be some clarification about impacts of designation. I served on the ILPC for 11 years, from the
early '1 990s through the early 2000s, and several projects come to mind regarding the interior renovation of and
additions to designated historic buildings. Two of the stongest examples are located on the Arts Quad of the Cornell
University campus; if you are notfamiliarwith them, perhaps a brief description will suffice. One building that had
significant interior work was Tjaden Hall, the stone building housing the Art Department located east of the Johnson
Art Museum. Some of the interior spaces were reconfigured, structural alterations were made, and circulation spaces
brought up to code, a basement level entrance was approved as potentially reversible, and roof modifications were
made to accommodate mechanicals and to add skylights to the art studios. Among the mitigations was the rebuilding
of the tower roof. A building that saw a significant addition was Lincoln Hall, with that addition facing East Avenue. A
more recently designated building that has had an addition is the John Snaith House, Iocated off campus at the
southwest corner of College Avenue and Cook Street.
I of2 1011112017 ,5:29 PM
Comments in support of the designation of the Chacona Block htrps ://mail.cityofithaca.org I ow aJ ? ae:ltem&t:IPM.N ote&id:RgA..
While not all proposals for alterations to designated buildings are approved or approved as originally presented,
there do exist opportunities to keep historic buildings new that permit close to the best of both worlds. I hope that
Planning and Economic Development Committee members will acknowledge and respect the historic significance of
the Chacona Block so that it can continue to give our community a sense of its past while serving future generations.
l0lll/2017.5:29PM
0ctober 11,2017
Dear Members of the Ithaca Common Council,
As proud current and future alumni of Cornell University, we strongly support the local
landmark designation of the Chacona Block. Since it was completed in 19 12, it has been
a constant presence in the life of the Cornell community, an important gateway that has
connected many gcnerations of students to the rest of Ithaca.
We celebrate Ithaca's growth and relish returning to explore our adopted hometown. Yet
in the last several years, much of the Collegetown we remember has been
bulldozed. Without landmark designation, the Chacona Block will be destroycd, per
statements by its owners. Its destruction would represent more than just another building
1ost. It will undoubtedly mean the end of Collegetown Bagcls in Collegetown, one of our
most quintessential Ithaca institutions, in favor of a national chain. It will result in the
loss of a glorious patio space, a rnuch-needed oasis in the midst of great urban density.
Preserving buildings is not only about preserving architectural features: it is also
substantively about providing spaces for unique intcractions, experiences, and
communities. These are the things that have largely been lost in the sanitization of the
Collegetown Neighborhood. Protccting the Chacona Block would be a signihcant step
towards mitigating this process.
We appreciate your recent support for the ncarby Larkin Building and hope you will join
us in also supporting the designation of the Chacona Block.
Jeffrey Levine '88
Robert McCullough'88 & '94
Susan Lawson '03
Eva Chiamulera'97 &'00
Jenrrifer Harma'97
Erin O'Grady'09
Erin Fredenckson '16
Lex Campbell '95
Ted Alexander '85
Matthew Kear'09
Shannon Cilento '17
Julee Johnson '85
Carolyn Gimbal '19
Leigh Scudder '19
Olivia Ileckendorf '19
Allyson Stoll 'l I
Anya Gedrath-Smith '18
Samuel Coons'17 &'21
Katelin Olson, '09 & '18
Swapna Kothari '12 &'74
Maryam Robi'18
Allison Rachleff '94
HannahMiller'19
Jcff Cody '85 & '89
Jessica Follman '16
Jonathan Rusch ' 13
LeiYan'17
John Southem'17
Imani Jaspcr '16 & '1 8
Mahyar Hadighi '12
Grant Johnson'10
Sarah Rodriguez'14
Alphonse Pieper'97
Bob Jaeger '84
Kristen Olson '08
James Glass '84 & '87
Ifeoluwa (Love) Oluyeju 'l7
Jordan Cleek '16
Shumeng Lei'21
Gina Di Rella, parent of '16
alum
Charles R. Jennings '96
Sean P. McGee '14 &,'16
Alec Bennett'05
Sara Johnson '01 & '09
Natalic fuanz'09
fuchard Carlson '91 &.'96
Fwd: SAVE THE CTB BIIILDING! Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building threa... htfps://mail.cityoflthaca.orglowa/?ae:ltem&FlPM.Note&id:RgA...
Fwd: SAVE THE CTB BUILDING! Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building threatened!
Katelin Olson [kolson 1 l@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, October 7'1.,2077 5:18 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh; Bryan lvlccracken
Cc: maureenemaftin@gmail.com
And still another landmark designation supporter
Forwarded message
From: Maureen Martin <maureenemartin@gm >
Date: Wed, Oct 11,2017 at 4:55 PM
Subject: Fwd: SAVE THR CTB BUILDI{GI Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building threatened!
To : kolsonl I (4)email.com
Hi Katelin,
Please add me to the list if it's not too late. Thanks for coordinating!
Dear Members of the Ithaca Common Council,
As proud alumni of Cornell Universily, we strongly support the local landmark designation of the
Chacona Block. Since it was completed in 7912, it has been a constant presence in the life of the Cornell
community, an important gateway that has connected many generations of students to the rest of lthaca.
We celebrate Ithaca's growth and relish retuming to explore our adopted hometown. Yet in the last
several years, much of the Collegetown we remember has been bulldozed. Without landmark
designation, the Chacona Block will be destroyed, per statements by its owners. Its destruction would
represent more than just another building lost. It will undoubtedly mean the end of Collegetown Bagels
in Collegetown, one ol our most quintessential Ithaca institutions, in favor of a national chain. It will
result in the loss of a glorious patio space, a much needed oasis in the midst of great urban density.
Preserving buildings is not only about preserving architectural features: it is also substantively about
providing spaces for unique interactions, experiences, and communities. These are the things that have
largely been lost in the sanitization of the Collegetown Neighborhood. Protecting the Chacona Block
would be a significant step towards mitigating that process.
We appreciate your recent support for nearby Larkin Building and hope you willjoin us in also
supporting the designation of the Chacona Block.
Maureen Martin ILR'06, MILR'10
mem88@,comc1l.cdu
Best,
-Maureen
I of2 l0llll20l1,5:19 PM
l of 2
Saranya
1011112017,5:20 PM
Fwd: SAVE THE CTB BUILDING! Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building threa... https://mail.ciryofithaca,orglowa/?ae-Item&t:IPM.Note&id:RgA...
Fwd: SAVE THE CTB BUILDING! Fwdr lconic lthaca building threatened!
Katelin Olson Ikolson 1 1@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, October tt,2017 4:33 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh; Bryan McCracken
Cc: Saranya fsaranyasrini@gmail.com]
Begin forwarded mcssage:
tr'rom: Saranya <saranyasrini@qmail.com>
Date: October 11, 2077 at 4:25:01 PM EDT
To: Katelin Olson <kolsonl 1 @email.c
Subject: Re: SAVE THE CTB BUILDING! Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building thrcatened!
Hi Katelin
I am a 2011 Alum of the ILR School. This is a sad news, hope my support helps.
Thanks for gctting this going
Best
Saranya Srinivasan
ss2457@comell.edu
Class of 2011, Industrial and Labor Relations School
Cornell,Ithaca. NY
Dear N{ernbers of the Ithaca Common Council.
As proud alumni of Cornell Universitv. rve strongly suppon the local landrnark designation of the Chacona Block. Since it was
cornplcted in 1912, it has been a constant presence in the life of the Cornell comrnunity, an imporlant gatewa)- that has
connectcd nranv generations ofstudents to the rest ofTthaca.
We celebrate Ithaca's grorvth and relish returning to explore our adopted hometorvn. Yet in the last scvcral ycars. much of the
Collegetorvn we remember has been bulldozed. Without landmark designation. the Chacona Block rvill be destroyed, per
statements by its owners. Its destruction would represent morc than just another building lost. tt will undoubtedly mean the end
of Collegeto,,vn Bagels in Collegetorvn, one of our most quintessential lthaca institutions, in favor of a national ohain. lt u.ill
result in the loss of a glorious patio space. a much needed oasis in the midst of great urban density'.
Prescrving buildings is not only about preserving architectural features: it is also substantively about providing spaces for
unique interactions. experiences. and communities. These are the things that have largely been lost in the sanitization ofthe
Collegetown Neighborhood. Protecting the Chacona Block rvould be a significant step towards mitigatin-e that proccss.
\\/e appreciate your recent support for nearby'Larkin Building and hopc y'ou rvill join us in also supportin_e the designation of
the Chacona Block.
Re: SAVE THE CTB BUILDINGI Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building threat... https://mail.cifyofithaca.org/owa./?ae=Item&t:IPM.Note&id:RgA.
Re: SAVE THE CTB BUILDING! Fwd: Iconic Ithaca building threatened!
Katelin Olson Ikolson11@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, October lt,2017 4:04 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh; Bryan Mccracken
Forwarded message
From: Shreyasi Mukerji <shreyasi.mukerii@
Date: Wed, Oct 11,2017 al4:02PM
Subject: Re: SAVE THE CTB BUILDING! Fwd: Iconic lthaca building threatened!
To:
Cc: kolsonl 1 @gmail.com
Dear Members of the lthaca Common Council,
As proud alumni of Cornell University, we strongly support the local landmark designation of the Chacona
Block. Since it was completed in 1912, it has been a constant presence in the life of the Cornell community, an
important gateway that has connected many generations of students to the rest of lthaca
We celebrate lthaca's growth and relish returning to explore our adopted hometown. Yet in the last several
years, much of the Collegetown we remember has been bulldozed. Without landmark designation, the
Chacona Block will be destroyed, per statements by its owners. lts destruction would represent more than just
another building lost. lt will undoubtedly mean the end of Collegetown Bagels in Collegetown, one of our most
quintessential lthaca institutions, in favor of a national chain. lt will result in the loss of a glorious patio space, a
much needed oasis in the midst of great urban density.
Preserving buildings is not only about preserving architectural features: it is also substantively about providing
spaces for unique interactions, experiences, and communities. These are the things that have largely been lost
in the sanitization of the Collegetown Neighborhood. Protecting the Chacona Block would be a significant step
towards mitigating that process.
We appreciate your recent support for nearby Larkin Building and hope you willjoin us in also supporting the
designation of the Chacona Block.
Shreyasi Mukerji, 2010
lofl 1011112017,5:20 PM
Fwd: The Chacona Block htps ://mai1. cityoflthaca.org I ow a/? ae:Item&FIPM.Note&id:RgA.
Fwd: The Chacona Block
Katelin Olson Ikolsonl 1@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, October 1I,2017 4:50 PM
Tor Joseph Murtagh; Bryan McCracken
Cc: jbreschard@gflrpc.org
Another supporter of landmark designation
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jayme Thomann@
Date: October 11, 2017 at 4:45:46 PM EDT
To: Katelin Olson <kolsonl I @smail.com>
Subject: The Chacona Block
HPP 2OO5
Jayme Breschard Thomann, Senior Planner, AICP, CFM
Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council
50 West Main Street, Suite 8107
Rochester, New York 14614
ibreschard@gfl rpc.org
T * (585) 454 -Ot90xl2
F * (58s) 454-019t
Dear Members of the Ithaca Common Council,
As proud alumni of Cornell University, we strongly support the local landmark designation of the
Chacona Block. Since it was completed in 1972, it has been a constant presence in the life of the Comell
commnnity, an important gateway that has connected many generations of students to the rest of Ithaca.
We celebrate Ithaca's growth and relish retuming to explore our adopted hometown. Yet in the last
several years, much of the Collegetown we remember has been bulldozcd. Without landmark
designation, the Chacona Block will be destroyed, per statements by its owncrs. Its destruction would
represent more than just another building lost. It will undoubtedly mean the end of Collcgetown Bagels
in Collegetown, one of our most quintessential Ithaca institutions, in favor of a national chain. It will
result in the loss of a glorious patio space, a much needed oasis in the midst of great urban density.
Preserving buildings is not only about preserving architectural features: it is also substantively about
providing spaces for unique interactions, experiences, and communities. These are the things that have
largely been lost in the sanitization of the Collegetown Neighborhood. Protecting the Chacona Block
1of 2 10111 12017 ,5: I 8 PM
Begin forwarded message:
Fwd: The Chacona Block https ://m ail.cityo fith aca. org/ow a./?ae:Item&FIPM.N ote&i d:RgA
would be a significant step towards mitigating that process
We appreciate your recent support for nearby Larkin Building and hope you will join us in also
supporting the designation of the Chacona Biock.
Jayme Thomann'05
2 of2 l0llll20l1,5:18 PM
Fwd: Support for the Chacona Block https ://mai1. cityofi thaca. org/owa/?ae:Item&I:IPM.Note&id=RgA.
Fwd: Support for the Chacona Block
Katelin Olson Ikolsonl 1@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday. October 17,2017 4:34 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh; Bryan McCracken
Cc: Michelle Van Meter [mw8@cornell,edu]
One more landmzrk designation supporter!
Thanks,
Katelin
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message
From: Michelle Van Meter <!qt 'E@coE91!.edU>
Date: October 11,2017 at 4:30:34 PM EDT
To: <kolsonl I@smail.c
Subject: Support for the Chacona Block
Katelin,
Is it too late to add my name to the supporters? I've been studying for a midterm all day
yesterday and today, so I have not been checking my email! I hope a1l goes well at the
meeting!
Name: Michelle Van Meter
Completion Year: zot8
MICHELLE VAN METER
Master of Arts in Historic Preservation Planning Candidate I zorS
Cornell University I ColLese of Architecture, Art. and Planninq
(+2il SzZ-g+27 | Linkedln
1of 1 10111/2017,5:18 PM
Fwd: letter of supporl htrps ://mai1.cityofi thaca.org/owa,/?ae-Itcm&t-IPM.Note&id-RgA..
Fwd: letter of suppoft
Katelin Olson lkolson 1 1@gmail.coml
SentrWednesday, October 77,20L7 3:26 PM
To: Bryan McCracken; Joseph Murtagh
Forwarded message
From: Ashima Krishna <ashima.kri
Date: Wed, oct 11, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Subject: letter of support
To: Katelin Olson <kolsonl1@gmail.o >
Dear Members of the Ithaca Common Council,
As proud alumna of Cornell University, I strongly support the local landmark designation of the
Chacona Block. Since it was completed in 1912, it has been a constant presence in the life of the Corncll
community, an important gateway that has connected many generations of students to the rest of Ithaca.
We alums celebrate lthaca's growth and rclish returning to explore our adopted hometown. Yet in the last
several years, much of the Coliegetown we remembcr has been bulldozed. Without landrnark
designation, the Chacona Block will be destroyed, per statcments by its owners. lts destruction would
represent more than just another building lost. It will undoubtedly mcan the end of Collegetown Ragels
in Collegetown, one of our most quintessential Ithaca institutions, in favor of a national chain. It will
result in the loss of a glorious patio space, a much needed oasis in the midst of grcat urban density.
Preserving buildings is not only about preserving architectural features: it is also substantively about
providing spaces for uniquc interactions, experiences, and communities. These are the things that have
largely been lost in the sanitization of the Collegetown Neighborhood. Protecting the Chacona Block
would be a significant step towards mitigating that process.
We appreciate your recent suppofi for nearby Larkin Building and hope you willjoin us in also
supporting the designation of the Chacona Block.
Ashima Krishna, 2008 &2014
Ashima Krishna, PhD
Assistant Professor, Historic Preservation
Co-Director, Programs in Historic Preservation
Depatment of Urban and Regional Planning
School of Architecture and Planning
Universifi at Buffalo, The State University of New York
7 of 2
Email : ashimakr@buffalo.edu
10/11/2017,5:28 PM
RE: Local Landmark designation for Chacona Block
REr Local Landmark designation for Chacona Block
Joseph Murtagh
Sent:Wednesday, October LI,2077 10:04 AM
To: Neha Khanna [nkhanna@binghamton.edu]; Stephen Smith; Cynthia Brock; Rob Gearhart
Cc: Bryan McCracken; JoAnn Cornish
Thanks Neha, appreciate it. Copying Bryan and JoAnn,
Seph
Seph Murtagh, Common Council
City of Ithaca, Second Ward
585-703-2582
https ://mail. cityofithaca. org/ow al ? ae:ltem&t:IPM.Note&id:RgA..
From: Neha Khanna [nkhanna@binghamton.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10,2077 3:56 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh; Stephen Smith; Cynthia Brock; Rob Gearhart
Subject: Local Landmark designation for Chacona Block
Dear members of the Planning and Economic Development Committee,
I am writing to cxpress my strong support for designating the Chacona Block in the City of Ithaca's
Collegetown ncighborhood as a Local Landmark.
At a time when College Avenue and the neighboring commercial section of the Collegetown
neighborhood is rapidly changing to an ulrecognizabie 'Any City, USA' , the Chacona Block gives
residents a chance to appreciate the history and context oftheir neighborhood. Please express your
political support for the cultural, architectural and social history of lthaca's Collegetown by voting in
favor of designating the Chacona Block a Local Landmark.
Sincerely,
Neha Khanna (2r'd Ward resident)
1of 2
Profess or, Economics and Environmental Studie s
1011112011,5:29 PM
As I noted in my public statement to the ILPC, the Chacona Block is one of the last remaining vestiges
of the historic Collegetown. It serves as an important architectural landmark and provides a sense of
place for many past, present and future generations of Collegetown residents. As the o\Arrer of three
properlies in various historic districts in the City of Ithaca, I can confidently say a historic or landmark
designation does not increase the cost of maintaining and renovating a historic property. Indeed, a
carefi.rlly renovated historic property is a point of pride for the owner and such stewardship efforts are
applauded by the City and its residents. Tb wit, on August 8,2077 , a current Chacona Block tenant
publicly stated that he would be willing to pay a higher rent if the property were designated a Local
Landmark and appropriately renovated.
Rb: Local Landmark designation for Chacona Block https ://mail.cityofithaca. orgiowal?ae:Item&t:IPM.Note&id:RgA..
Department of Economics
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton, NY 13902
Phonc: 607 -777 -2689; Fax: 607 -777 -2681
Website: http://www.binghamton.edr,r/economics/people/tenured-and-tenure-track-faculty/khanna.html
2 of2 101112017,5:29 PM