HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-17 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting Agenda1PEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: September 13, 2017
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: 3rd floor City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Start
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
2) Special Order of Business
a) Report and Public Hearing – Development
of the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH)
3) Public Comment and Response from
Committee Members
4) Updates, Announcements, Reports
5) Action Items (Sending to Council)
a) Green Street Garage Re‐development
(with brief presentation from Ithaca
Properties LLC and Peak Campus)
b) Designation of the Larkin Building at 403
College Ave. as a Historic Local Landmark
c) Resolution Requesting Environmental
Review of Proposed Cargill Mine Shaft
6) Action Items (Approval to Circulate)
a) Proposal to Restrict South Hill In‐fill
Development
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) August 2017
8) Adjournment
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Nels Bohn, IURA Director
Nels Bohn, IURA Director
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation
Planner
Cynthia Brock, Committee Member
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
6:00
6:05
6:15
6:25
6:30
7:25
7:40
7:55
8:25
8:30
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City
Clerk at 274‐6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, September 12, 2017.
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 274-6565
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Anisa Mendizabal, Community Development Planner
RE: Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Public Hearing
Date: September 7, 2017
Overview: The Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), which replaces the Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing (AI), is a process mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to
be undertaken by communities receiving federal housing and community development dollars.
Communities must complete the AFH 270 days prior to the submission of their Consolidated Plans. The City
of Ithaca receives federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) funding on an annual basis and thus is subject to this mandate. Due to the submission
cycle for its Consolidated Plan, Ithaca will be one of the first 125 communities nationwide to submit an AFH.
The IURA has initiated the AFH, which has a submission deadline to HUD of November 4, 2017. The AFH
must be approved by Common Council. HUD has a 60‐day period to review and accept or comment on the
submitted AFH.
Background: Federal fair housing law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin,
sex, disability or familial status. HUD recognized that fair housing barriers persist nationally and sought to
more fully incorporate fair housing analysis into the planning process by establishing the AFH. The intent is
to help communities determine whether policies, practices, programs, and activities restrict fair housing
choice and access to opportunity. Under the AFH framework, once fair housing barriers are identified, the
next steps are to identify factors that contribute to the barriers, and then develop a plan with locally‐
determined priorities and goals for addressing these restrictions with meaningful actions. Input acquired
through the AFH will be incorporated into the community’s Consolidated Plan and subsequent Action Plans.
Among the improvements and refinements of the AFH over the AI is that communities are provided with
data and maps to assess the following fair housing issues:
1. Patterns of integration and segregation
2. Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
3. Disparities in access to opportunity
4. Disproportionate housing need.
The interactive maps and data tables are posted on the IURA website: Ithacaura.org.
The purpose of the public hearing is to obtain views of the general public on fair housing barriers and
opportunities in the community and region and identify projects for CDBG and HOME funding that increase
housing choices.
j:\community development\fair housing\afh 2017\memo to ped 9‐7‐17 afh vf.doc
Ithaca
Urban
Renewal
Agency
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607)-274-6565
Contact Person: Anisa Mendizabal at amendizabal@cityofithaca.org
August 31, 2017
Legal Advertising Department
The Ithaca Journal
(e-mail:cnylegals@gannett.com)
LEGAL NOTICE
Please publish the following legal notice for three (3) consecutive days as soon as possible in the Ithaca
Journal. Please publish the notices as soon as possible.
Public Hearing
City of Ithaca
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH)
The Planning and Economic Development Committee of the City of Ithaca Common Council will hold a
public hearing at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 13, 2017, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 108 E.
Green Street, Ithaca, NY, on the Assessment of Fair Housing, a process undertaken to Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing, as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Public comment is encouraged. Written comments may be sent to Common Council, c/o City Clerk, City of
Ithaca, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. For more information contact Anisa Mendizabal at
Amendizabal@cityofithaca.org at (607) 274-6553.
Please verify receipt of this order upon receipt to amendizabal@cityofithaca.org. Please do not send an
affidavit of publication. Send the bill to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency.
1
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 13, 2017
Transfer of Property at 120 E. Green Street to the IURA to Structure a Proposed Urban
Renewal Project Subject to Common Council Approval – Lead Agency
Whereas, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to transfer
ownership of property located at 120 E. Green Street to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA) to structure a proposed property sale and development agreement with a preferred
developer to undertake an urban renewal project to redevelop the Green Street parking
garage, and
Whereas, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be
established for the purpose of 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 transfer of less than 2.5 acres of land is an “Unlisted” action
pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQR”), which requires
environmental review under CEQR; and
Whereas, the property to be transferred at 120 E. Green Street is 1.45 acres in size; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review of the transfer of property located at 120 E. Green
Street (tax parcel #70.-4-5.2) to the IURA for the purpose of structuring a proposed property
sale and development agreement with a preferred developer to undertake an urban renewal
project subject to approval by Common Council.
j:\community development\dispositions\green garage\reso pedc green garage transfer to iura - lead agency 9-13-17.doc
1
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 13, 2017
Transfer of Property at 120 E. Green Street to the IURA to Structure a Proposed Urban
Renewal Project Subject to Common Council Approval – Environmental Review
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to transfer
ownership of property located at 120 E. Green Street to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA) to structure a proposed property sale and development agreement with a preferred
developer to undertake an urban renewal project subject to approval by Common Council,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed urban renewal project will undergo separate environmental
review as part of the site plan review process, and
WHEREAS, the proposed urban renewal project is not fully defined or designed at this time,
nor possible without acquisition of City-owned land, therefore an analysis of potentially
significant adverse impacts of a yet-to-be defined urban renewal project at the site of the
Green Street parking garage is not feasible at this time, and
WHEREAS, as part of the site plan review process, the Planning Board regularly conducts
rigorous and thorough environmental review of all aspects of the proposed development
project that comes before it, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to §176-6(F)(1)(b) of the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, the reestablishment of a Lead Agency may occur “upon failure of the Lead
Agency’s basis of jurisdiction,” so that the Planning Board may subsequently assume the
role of Lead Agency for the environmental review for the site plan review of the proposed
hotel project, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action for transfer of city-owned property of less than 2.5 acres is
an “Unlisted Action” under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has
reviewed the SEAF prepared by staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines
that circumstances warrant a segmented review of this property transfer from other stages
of the proposed urban renewal project and that subsequent environmental review of the
proposed project during the required site plan review process will be no less protective of
the environment, and be it further
2
RESOLVED, that the Common Council, as Lead Agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its
own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form, 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 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.
j:\community development\dispositions\green garage\reso pedc green garage transfer to iura - environmental review 9-13-17.doc
1
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
September 13, 2017
Transfer of Property at 120 E. Green Street to the IURA to Structure a Proposed Urban
Renewal Project Subject to Common Council Approval – Action
WHEREAS, a developer has approached the City to acquire and redevelop the Green
Street Parking Garage property (Garage) for a proposed mixed-use project including the
following elements:
An approximately 25,000 square foot conference center;
Approximately 350 housing units;
Street level active uses along Green Street;
Retention of the Cinemapolis movie theater;
Approximately 450 parking spaces open to the public, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns tax parcel #70.-4-5.2 located at 120 E. Green Street, a
1.45 acre parcel of which approximately 1.25 acres contains the Garage that is located
within a CBD-140 zoning district, and
WHEREAS, the Green Street parking garage parcel provides approximately 415 parking
spaces currently, and
WHEREAS, the western and central sections of the Garage are located on the City-owned
tax parcel #70.-4-5.2 and the eastern section is located on air rights over property owned by
Ithaca Properties LLC, and
WHEREAS, the prospective developer team who approached the City to redevelop the
Garage includes Jeffrey Rimland, the managing member of Ithaca Properties LLC who
owns the land under the eastern section of the Green Garage, and
WHEREAS, the Garage was constructed in 1974 and a recent structural evaluation of the
western and eastern sections of the garage found significant structural problems that are
estimated to require a substantial investment to extend the useful life of the garage, and
WHEREAS, §507 of General Municipal Law authorizes the IURA to negotiate sale of public
land with a Qualified and Eligible Sponsor (“Preferred Developer”) to undertake an urban
renewal project, which proposed sale and development agreement is subject to public
hearing and approval by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Urban Renewal Plan is to improve the economic,
social and physical characteristics of the project neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, City policy requires the Board of Public Works to declare City-owned property
surplus for public works purposes prior to any transfer of City-owned property, and
2
WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City of Ithaca comprehensive plan, supports compact, mixed-
use development located near transit hubs and an increased supply of housing at different
levels of affordability, and
WHEREAS, environmental review has been completed on this proposed action; now,
therefore, be it
1. RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby authorizes transfer of the Green Street
Parking Garage property located at 120 E. Green Street (tax parcel #70.-4-5.2) to the
IURA, via an option agreement, for the purpose of structuring a proposed property sale
and development agreement with a preferred developer to undertake an urban renewal
project subject to approval by Common Council, and be it further
2. RESOLVED, that such option agreement shall contain the following seller contingencies
to be satisfied prior to closing:
A. Determination by the Board of Public Works that the land and air rights to be
conveyed for the redevelopment project is surplus for public works purposes;
B. Discharge of mortgage, or consent of property transfer, by M&T Bank who holds a
leasehold mortgage on the Green Garage as security for bonds issued to construct
the public portions of the Cayuga Green project;
C. Determination of exact boundaries of the parcel to be conveyed;
D. Common Council approval of the proposed sale and development agreement with
the developer following publication of a legal notice disclosing the essential terms of
the proposed sale and development project and a public hearing on the proposed
project, and be it further
3. RESOLVED, the Common Council directs the IURA to seek out the following
programmatic elements to be included in the project:
A. An approximately 25,000 square foot conference center;
B. Approximately 350 housing units not designed exclusively for students, including a
substantial number of units to be affordable to low and/or middle income households;
C. Street-level active uses along Green Street;
D. Retention of the Cinemapolis movie theater & a public walkway between Green
Street and the Commons;
E. Approximately 450 parking spaces open to the public, of which at least 90 will be
available for short-term parking; and be it further
4. RESOLVED, that the following issues are to be resolved through negotiation to the
satisfaction of the IURA and City:
A. Disposition of the parking agreement for Marriott hotel guests;
B. Compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines;
C. Coordination and compatibility with adjacent properties/uses and the Downtown
Ithaca Alliance’s 2020 Strategic Plan;
D. Pricing and management of parking available to the public;
E. Disposition of outstanding municipal bonds issued for the Green Street Parking
Garage;
F. Taxable status of the project;
G. Customer access to Cinemapolis during all phases of the project;
3
H. Relocation of municipal garbage, recycling and storage functions currently operating
at the project site;
I. Establishment of boundaries of the parcel to be conveyed;
J. Sales price; and be it further
5. RESOLVED, that net proceeds from sale of City-owned land to a Preferred Developer
shall be paid to the City, and be it further
6. RESOLVED, that the Mayor, upon review by the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to
implement this resolution, including execution of any and all instruments necessary to
execute an option agreement with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, and be if further
7. RESOLVED, that the IURA shall be reimbursed for costs incurred to develop the
proposed urban renewal project from lease or loan payments the IURA collects on behalf
of the City.
j:\community development\dispositions\green garage\reso pedc gren garage transfer to iura - action 9-13-17 revision 2.doc
TO: Members of the Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Local Historic Designation of the Larkin Building at 403 College Avenue
DATE: September 9, 2017
At their regular monthly meeting on July 11, 2017, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) held a public hearing to consider the designation of the property located at
403 College Ave. as individual local landmark. At the conclusion of that 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 Larkin Building.
Based on the information provided in the nomination, the ILPC found that the Larkin Building at
403 College Ave is eligible for local designation based on criteria 1, 2, and 3 as set forth in
Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code. Per criterion 1, the Larkin Building “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 Larkin Building “is
identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s)” through its association with the
Larkin family, the owners and proprietors of many successful grocery and variety stores in
Collegetown during the first half of the twentieth century. Per criterion 3, the Larkin Building
“embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style” as a good local example of
the commercial form of the Renaissance-Revival Style.
As set forth in the Municipal Code, the Planning and Development Board has been requested to
file a report to 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. A copy of that report is also 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. Draft resolutions are included in this packet for the Committee’s
consideration.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, 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 Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
ILPC Meeting – 07/11/17
Resolution - RC
RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Larkin Building, 403 College Avenue
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) may recommend to Common Council the designation of
landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing held on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, for the purpose of considering a
proposal to designate the Larkin Building at 403 College Ave as a City of Ithaca
landmark has been concluded, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form
dated August 1, 2012, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative
Description of Significance prepared by the Secretary of the Commission, L. Truame, based
on materials submitted to the ILPC in 2012 by Sara Johnson and Kristen Olsen of
Historic Ithaca, Inc., with Mary Raddant Tomlan, City Historian,, and
WHEREAS, the proposal is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act
and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further
environmental review, and
WHEREAS, consideration of the Larkin Building as a historic resource was introduced in a report
prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009 entitled Collegetown
Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features, and
WHEREAS, the Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, endorsed by Common Council
in August, 2009, recommends that “historically significant resources within the entire
Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation as local landmarks, but which
currently 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 Worthy of
Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural
Ensembles and Landscape Features document and the recommendation from the
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, the ILPC conducted an intensive-
level survey of twelve properties within the Collegetown Planning Area that appeared
to meet the eligibility requirements for local designation as set forth in Section 228-3B
of the Municipal Code in 2012 , and
WHEREAS, the New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form, which is being used as the
basis for considering the designation of 403 College Ave, was prepared as part of the
aforementioned intensive-level survey, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the criteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Larkin Building
2
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 nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
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 Commission adopts as its own, the documentation and information more
fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building Structure Inventory Form
dated August 1, 2012, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the
proposed designation.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New York State
Historic Resource Inventory Form prepared by L. Truame and dated August 1, 2012,
the Larkin Building and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29,
is a structure deemed worth of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as
enumerated below:
Per criterion 1, the Larkin Building 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.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance, Cornell University
offered few lodging opportunities for its students, faculty and staff 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
university starting in the 1870s and 1880s. By the first two decades of the
20th century, preference in the rental housing market in Ithaca, particularly
among the faculty and staff living in the area that would become known as
Collegetown, had shifted away from single-room rentals like those found in
the boarding and rooming houses to flat-style apartments—an urban-housing
mode that contained kitchen, bathroom and living areas in one private unit.
Built in 1913, the Larkin was of the first mixed-use mercantile-residential
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Larkin Building
3
buildings to be constructed near the University to meet this demand. Its
ground-floor commercial spaces housed businesses that catered to the ever
growing student population, including the Larking Bros. grocery store, while
the upper-story flats provided independent housing opportunities for
professionals living in Collegetown.
The Narrative Description of Significance further notes that the construction of
the Larkin Building at 403 College Ave contributed to the transformation of
the area that would become Collegetown from an extension of the
downtown to a vibrant neighborhood with a distinct identity. Along with the
Chacona Block and Sheldon Court, the Larkin Building was one of the first
mixed-use commercial-style buildings constructed on College Avenue. Its
completion marked the beginning of the gradual urbanization of the 400
block of that street, a process that allowed the street to become the
commercial and housing center of a neighborhood centered almost
exclusively on the needs of the university population.
Per criterion 2, the Larkin Building is identified with historically significant
person(s) or event(s) through its association with the Larkin family.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the Larkin family owned
multiple grocery and variety stores in the Collegetown from 1889 to 1940.
Edward Larkin, an Irish immigrant and laborer, established the family’s first
grocery store on Eddy Street in 1890 or 1901. After the completion of their
namesake building in 1913, Walter F. and John J. Larkin opened the second
grocery business on College Ave, indicating the growing need for grocery
suppliers in the neighborhood to service the boarding houses and fraternities
as well as the residents living in self-contained apartment units.
Per criterion 3, the Larkin Building embodies the distinguishing characteristics
of an architectural style.
The Larkin Building is a good local example of the commercial form of the
Renaissance-Revival Style. Although the first floor has been significantly
altered, the upper stories of the Larkin Building still possess important
characteristics indicative of this architectural style, including the segmental-
arch-capped three-story pilasters with simple limestone bases and Ionic
capitals, the barrel- and segmental-arched window openings in the fourth and
fifth stories, and the alternating single and double, full-story brackets of the
fifth story, forming the building’s cornice.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the Larkin Building meets criterion 1, 2, and 3 defining a
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Larkin Building
4
Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks
Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommend the designation the Larkin Building at 403
College Avenue as a City of Ithaca landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: D. Kramer
Seconded by: M.M. McDonald
In favor: M.M. McDonald, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson
Against: S. Gibian
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Stein, J. Minner
Vacancies: 0
OFFICE USE ONLY
USN:HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
IDENTIFICATION
Property name(if any)
Address or Street Location
County Town/City Village/Hamlet:
Owner Address
Original use Current use
Architect/Builder,if known Date of construction,if known
DESCRIPTION
Materials please check those materials that are visible
Exterior Walls:wood clapboard wood shingle vertical boards plywood
stone brick poured concrete concrete block
vinyl siding aluminum siding cement asbestos other:
Roof:asphalt,shingle asphalt,roll wood shingle metal slate
Foundation:stone brick poured concrete concrete block
Other materials and their location:
Alterations,if known:Date:
Condition:excellent good fair deteriorated
Explain:
ATTACHMENTS
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.
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 map indicating the location of the property in relation to streets,intersections or other
widely recognized features so that the property can be accurately positions.Show a north arrow.Include a scale
or estimate distances where possible.
Prepared by:Address
Telephone:Email Date
(Continued on reverse)
Field Services Bureau • Division for Historic Preservation • New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Peebles Island, P. O. Box 189, Waterford, NY 12188 • www.nysparks.com/shpo • 518-237-8643
Larkin Building
403 College Ave.
Tompkins Ithaca
403 Huestis Street LLC
400 College Ave., #100, Ithaca, NY 14850
mixed-use mixed-use
x
x
see continuation sheet
x stucco
x
1913
L. Truame 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274-6555
ltruame@cityofithaca.org 8/1/12
STATE AND NATIONAL REGISTERS PROGRAM
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM 2
Revised 9/09
Field Services Bureau • Division for Historic Preservation • New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation • www.nysparks.com/shpo
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Narrative Description of Property:Briefly describe the property and its setting.Include a verbal description of the
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.Identify and describe any associated buildings,
structures or features on the property,such as garages,silos,privies,pools,gravesites.Identify any known
exterior and interior alterations such as additions,replacement windows,aluminum or vinyl siding or changes in
plan.Include dates of construction and alteration,if known.Attach additional sheets as needed.
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.g.,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
See continuation sheet
Narrative Description of Property:
Larkin Building, 403 College Avenue, Ithaca
The Larkin Building is a five-story, commercial-style, brick-clad building constructed in 1912-
13 in the Renaissance Revival style. Above the ground floor storefronts, the building’s
principal façade is clad in gray-white brick. Decorative elements include stone Ionic capitals
on brick pilasters, corbelled brick arches, simple stone window sills and lintels, and a series of
barrel arch windows on the fifth story. Large decorative brackets extend almost the full
height of the fifth story. The building is located on the northernmost block of College Avenue
near the south entrance to Cornell University. It is among the earlier commercial-style
buildings constructed on College Avenue to provide both rental apartments and commercial
space.
-------------------------------
The Larkin Building, also known as the Larkin Block, is located at 403 College Avenue, on the
east side of College Avenue near the intersection with Dryden Road. This five-story
representative of the commercial, Renaissance-Revival Style is a mixed-use building with
commercial space in the two ground floor storefronts and apartments in the upper stories. The
Larkin Building and the Chacona Block, 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.
Directly across College Avenue to the west are late-twentieth century mixed-use commercial
buildings. Sheldon Court and Cornell’s Schwartz Center for the Performing Arts are located at
the north end of the west side of College Avenue. Late-twentieth century commercial buildings
are on the southeast corner of College Avenue and Dryden Road and directly behind the
building on the east side of Dryden Road. Further south, the 100 and 200 blocks of College
Avenue are former single-family homes converted to student apartments, except for the Grand
View House at 209 College Avenue, the last surviving of Collegetown’s great boardinghouses.
The Larkin Building is constructed of hollow clay tile and brick with a concrete foundation. The
building’s principal, west, façade consists of six bays. The first-story is clad in red brick that is
consistent with the contiguous buildings, but not original to the building. The two recessed
center bays contain doors leading to the upper-story apartments and the restaurant occupying
the south storefront. The two bays on each side of the center bay contain full-height aluminum-
framed windows. The first-story windows and doors are all non-historic; the date of these
alterations in not known but appears to be after the Triangle Book Shop moved from the
building in 1990. During its occupation by the Triangle Book Shop, the entrance to the store was
through the northernmost bay, but it is not known where the primary storefront entrance was
at the time of construction in 1913.
The current storefront signage consists of a first-story awning extending almost the full width of
the building, shared by a coffee shop, restaurant, and basement lounge, all under the same
ownership. Earlier businesses mounted signs on the second story that projected over the
sidewalk. The Triangle Book Shop sign was mounted between the first and second
northernmost windows, above the entrance. The previous occupant, Egan’s IGA, mounted its
sign between the two center windows.1
The six-bay upper stories are clad in light gray-white brick. Pilasters separate the second and
third bays and the fourth and fifth bays. The simple gray sandstone bases of the pilasters rest
on the top of the first story and the pilaster’s sandstone Ionic capitals line up with the soldier
brick lintels above the fourth story window. Corbelled segmental arches formed by rows of
soldier bricks span the spaces between pilasters and also between the pilasters and the slightly
projecting exterior corners of the building.
The second, third, and fourth story window openings contain 1/1 non-historic windows with
gray sandstone sills. The second and third story windows have simple sandstone lintels. The sills
and lintels create the appearance of stringcourses across the façade. Though the windows are
1 New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form photograph for 403 College Avenue, 1975; Tompkins County
Department of Assessment, Tompkins County Tax Assessment photograph, 1954, Historic Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY;
Map of 403 College Ave., Ithaca, NY, April 9, 1955, included in deed book 377, page 212, Office of the Tompkins
County Clerk, Ithaca, NY.
replacements, a ca. 1954 photograph shows what appear to be similar 1/1 sash, possibly the
building’s original windows.
A narrow band of sandstone caps the fourth story and a row of six cornice-line, barrel arch
window openings defines the slightly recessed fifth story. The windows are framed in the same
gray-white brick as the rest of the façade, with soldier bricks creating the barrel arches. The
existing non-historic window sash replaced original fanlight-topped windows. Alternating
paired and single brackets extending the full height of the fifth story and separate each bay. The
paired brackets are located on the projecting exterior edges and above the pilasters, continuing
the vertical emphasis created by those elements.2
The building’s south and east façades are generally not visible from the street due to the
position of neighboring commercial buildings. The stucco-clad north façade of the Larkin
Building is exposed in an alley between the Larkin Building and the building to the north. The
entrance to the alley is framed by a band of red brick topped with gray stone extending from
the top of the neighboring building’s first story to the top of the Larkin Building’s red brick first
story and the simple sandstone base of the second story.
Narrative Description of Significance:
Larkin Building, 403 College Avenue, Ithaca
The Larkin Building 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 as an urban neighborhood separate from
downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct character. Built in 1912-13 as a mixed-use, fire-
resistant, commercial-style building replacing an earlier wood boardinghouse, the
construction of the Larkin Building on the block of College Avenue adjacent to the entrance to
Cornell University was part of a larger movement toward establishing College Avenue as the
center of Collegetown. It has architectural significance as an example of the early-twentieth
century commercial Renaissance Revival Style.
The Larkin Building has additional local significance for its association with John J. and Walter
F. Larkin, whose family owned multiple grocery and variety stores in Collegetown from 1889
to 1940, and for its association with the Triangle Book Shop, a bookstore located on College
Avenue from 1903 to the late 1990s, and in the Larkin Building from 1965 to 1990.
2 Tompkins County Department of Assessment, Tompkins County Tax Assessment photograph, 1954, Historic
Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY
---------------------
The area now called Collegetown was settled relatively early due to the abundant waterpower
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 millpond. Called Willow Pond, it endured until the 1890s,
crossed by Huestis Street immediately north of the Larkin Building.
Along with the rest of Collegetown and much of the present-day city of Ithaca, the Larkin
Building property was part of the extensive holdings amassed by Simeon DeWitt following the
allotment of lands within the Military Tract. Much of the land on East Hill was farmed or grazed
during the early 19th 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 21-acre John and Samuel Giles estate. Possibly anticipating commercial and residential
development after the opening of Cornell University in 1868, the Giles heirs divided the estate
into urban-size parcels and sold them in the 1870s. The Larkin building is on lot #2 of the Giles
estate.3
The shortage of student housing that continues to affect Cornell today began as soon as the
University opened in 1868, when the only lodging offered by the school was in Morrill Hall, the
first campus building, or in Cascadilla Hall, a repurposed building designed (though never used)
as a water-cure sanitarium located at the north end of Eddy Street on the south side of the
Cascadilla Creek gorge. Students and professors who did not lodge on campus rented rooms in
homes downtown and endured multiple daily treks up East Hill before omnibus service to
Cascadilla Hall began in 1876.
When Walter F. and John. J. Larkin purchased 403 College Avenue from Sylvester Eckler on July
27, 19114, the property included a two-and-a-half story wood frame house previously operated
by Eckler as a rooming house. The fourteen-room house, which evidence suggests was
constructed between 1898 and 1904, was advertised by Eckler for rent, partially furnished, in
June 1911.5 Rather than demolish this building, the Larkins chose to move the existing house to
a lot on Linden Avenue, possibly 230 or 232 Linden Avenue. On October 3, 1912, the Ithaca
Daily Journal reported that the city approved the move of the house with the following
conditions: the Larkins were to move the house in three days, the work would be supervised by
3 Map of a Part of the Giles Estate, January 1876. Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, Ithaca, NY.
4 Deed of July 27, 1911 conveying 403 College Avenue to Walter F. and John J. Larkin from Sylvester Eckler, book
177, page 98, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, Ithaca, NY.
5 Sanborn fire insurance maps of Ithaca, 1898 and 1904; Ithaca Daily News June 5, 1911.
the building commissioner, the Larkins were responsible for any damage to other properties,
and they were required to remove and replace overhead wires along the moving route.6
Prior to opening their College Avenue business, the Larkin family operated grocery stores on
Eddy Street. Edward Larkin, an Irish immigrant and laborer, established the first of these
businesses in 1890 or 1891.7 A 1907 fire damaged several Eddy Street buildings, including the
locations of the John A. Chacona Candy Company store, the Student Agencies laundry, and a
men’s clothing shop. It is not known whether this fire damaged the Larkin’s Eddy Street
business, but both the Larkins and the Chacona family built new commercial buildings along
College Avenue between 1911 and 1913. The modern rooming houses and mixed-use
apartment buildings constructed in the early 1900s – Sheldon Court, the Chacona Block, 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.8
In November 1912, it was reported that the Larkins were planning to build a four-story building
on the College Avenue site, to be constructed of brick and hollow terra cotta block, and
projected to cost $40,000. The ground floor would be divided into two store spaces and the
three upper floors would be designed for apartments. At the time of the report, no architect
was named for the building, and the Larkins had not hired a contractor, but by January 1913,
excavations had begun on the site.9
The Larkin Building was one of many construction projects in Ithaca in 1912-1913, and in
September 1912, the Ithaca Daily Journal reported a local labor shortage. The Driscoll Bros.
contracting firm had four large construction projects underway in at the time – Ithaca High
School, the City Hospital, Cornell’s Prudence Risley Hall, and the Realty Company Building.
Cornell’s Cascadilla Hall was also being rehabilitated for use as an official men’s dormitory; it
had previously been university-owned housing with boarding facilities operated by private
contractors.10
The Larkin Block was completed by September 1913, when Larkin Bros. advertised in the
Cornell Daily Sun: “Larkin Bros. have moved to their new store in the Larkin Bldg. Catering to
fraternities, boarding houses and students in general is our specialty.” Another September
6 Ithaca Daily Journal, October 3,1912; Ithaca Daily News November 14, 1912. Conflicting newspaper reports state
both 230 and 232 as the possible new address of the moved building.
7 Norton’s Ithaca City Directory for 1890-91 (Ithaca, NY: E.D. Norton), 156.
8 Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds., Ithaca’s Neighborhoods (Ithaca, NY: DeWitt
Historical Society of Tompkins County, 1988), 169.
9 Ithaca Daily News November 14, 1912; Ithaca Daily Journal, January 3, 1913.
10 Ithaca Daily Journal,September 9, 1912.
Cornell Daily Sun advertisement offered the new apartments at “reasonable” rents, and
directed potential tenants to inquire at the Larkin store. 11 An Ithaca Daily News advertisement
described the apartments as “strictly modern with private halls.” There was at least one
apartment still unoccupied in December 1913, when the Larkins ran another Ithaca Daily News
ad offering a “Modern Apartment” in the “New Larkin Block”. This directed inquiries to either
J.J. Larkin at 403 College Avenue or W.F. Larkin at 410 Stewart Avenue.12 The Larkin Building
apartments 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 apartments above the retail spaces were rented to a variety of tenants, many associated
with Cornell University. Both students and professors lived in the Larkin apartments, as well as
employees of Collegetown businesses and their families. John V. Larkin, one of John J. Larkin’s
sons, and his wife occupied one of the apartments in 1929-1930. The Ithaca city directory
listings indicate six separate apartment units in the building, although it is not known how the
apartments were laid out on each floor or the size of each space.13
While the nineteenth century saw student-oriented businesses 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. When the Larkin brothers opened their College
Avenue store, there was only one other grocery business on College Avenue. As they noted in
their September 1913 advertisement, the Larkin store aimed to serve the boarding houses and
fraternities, which would have required large grocery orders, but there were also a growing
number of Collegetown residents living in apartments with self-contained kitchens; by 1919,
only one boarding house remained on the 400 block of College Avenue.14 As the number of new
Collegetown apartment units grew, more grocery stores and services opened on College
Avenue to meet the needs of apartment dwellers. In 1929, the Ithaca city directory listed six
grocery stores on College Avenue, including Larkin Bros.15
11 Cornell Daily Sun September 26, 1913.
12 Ithaca Daily News,September 27, 1913;Ithaca Daily News, December 19, 1913.
13 Ithaca city directories, 1913-1965; Manning’s Ithaca (New York) Directory for the Year Beginning January, 1930
(Schenectady, NY: H.A.Manning Co., 1930), 218.
14 Sanborn fire insurance map for Ithaca, September 1919, sheet 32.
15 Norton & Goohue’s Ithaca City Directory for 1911-12 (Ithaca, NY: Norton printing Company, 1911), 410-411;
Manning’s Ithaca (New York) Directory For the Year Beginning January, 1929 (Schenectady, NY: H.A. Manning
Co.), 554.
According to Ithaca city directories, John J. Larkin was the manager and proprietor of the Larkin
Brothers College Avenue store, and though Walter Larkin co-owned the property, he
maintained a wholesale grocery business on Stewart Avenue. Available records do not indicate
that brother Thomas J. Larkin was involved with the College Avenue grocery, but his obituary
stated that he was in business with his brothers until the partnership dissolved in 1916. Thomas
J. Larkin continued to operate an Eddy Street store until his retirement in 1940.16
The Larkin Bros. grocery store shared the first story of 403 College Avenue with the Student
Supply Store from 1915 through 1937. It is likely that the Student Supply Store occupied the
north storefront because advertisements list the store’s address as 405 College Avenue, while
Ithaca city directories list the business at 403 College Avenue, the Larkin Building’s official street
address. Like Larkin Brothers, the Student Supply Store was located on Eddy Street prior to its
move to College Avenue, and may have maintained the Eddy Street branch for two years after
the opening of the College Avenue store. The Student Supply Store was a stationery and variety
store, selling books, stationery, pens, account books, alarm clocks, Kodak products, banners and
general school supplies. A 1924 advertisement claimed that it was “The Busiest Store in
Collegetown.” The Student Supply Store closed in 1937 or 1938, and its proprietor, John B.
Burling, is listed in the 1937 Ithaca city directory as the owner of Imperial Stationery, a store
located at 403 College Avenue for approximately one year.17
After John J. Larkin’s death in 1938, Francis W. Egan purchased Larkin Bros. grocery store. At
the time of the sale, Egan also owned a grocery store at 113 South Cayuga Street. The Larkin
family retained ownership of the Larkin Building until May 6, 1955, when they sold the property
to Francis and Rita Egan. The Egan family may have continued to operate the Cayuga Street
store in 1938 and 1939, but closed it by 1940. The family also chose to live in Collegetown after
purchasing the Larkin business, moving to nearby 212 Delaware Avenue in 1940 or 1941.18
Francis and Rita Egan operated their grocery business at 403 College Avenue from 1938 to
1965, apparently utilizing the entire first story. During these years, the Ithaca city directories
and advertisements listed the store under various names: Egan’s Food Shop, Egan’s Food Store,
Egan’s Super Market, and Egan’s I.G.A. A 1954 photograph of the building shows only the top of
16 Obituary of Thomas J. Larkin, Ithaca Journal, January 3, 1944.
17 Manning’s Ithaca (New York) Directory For the Year Beginning January, 1937 (Schenectady, NY: H.A. Manning
Co.); Cornell Daily Sun September 24, 1924.
18 Obituary of John J. Larkin, Ithaca Journal, March 8, 1938, p. 3. Notice of Egan’s purchase of Larkin store is in
Cornell Alumni News, June 2, 1938. Deed of May 6, 1955 conveying 403 College Avenue from Larkin family to
Francis Egan, Deed Book 377, Page 212. Office of the Tompkins County Clerk. Ithaca City Directories, 1937-1941.
the store’s sign projecting from the second story; the visible portion of the sign is the word
“SUPER”.19
Collegetown continued to develop as a distinct neighborhood, and a September 1956 Ithaca
Journal advertisement sponsored by the East Hill Merchants Association called the College
Avenue, Dryden Road and Eddy Street commercial area the “East Hill Shopping Center”. This
may have been in response to the competition posed by the Ithaca Shopping Plaza, which
opened on Elmira Road a few years earlier and advertised plenty of free parking. The
Merchants Association’s map represented over fifty varied businesses, offering goods, services,
and recreational opportunities to neighborhood residents. Egan’s I.G.A. was featured, with an
advertisement listing groceries, meats, fruits, vegetables, frozen foods, beer and soft drinks
among their merchandise.20
Egan’s grocery moved to 301 College Avenue in October 1964, and the Triangle Book Shop
moved into the Larkin Building’s first floor space the following summer. Francis and Rita Egan
retained ownership of the Larkin Building until May 1, 1972, when they sold the property to
Robert G. and Mabel F. Johnson. Robert G. Johnson was the owner of Collegetown’s Triangle
Book Shop.21
The Triangle Book Shop had a Collegetown presence for over ninety years. It was established in
1903 in a first-story retail space in Sheldon Court, where it remained until 1965, when Cornell
University, then the owner of Sheldon Court, declined to renew the store’s lease. The
developers of Sheldon Court, who initially operated the store, sold the buisness in 1906 to the
owners of downtown Ithaca’s Corner Book Store. The store expanded in 1939, opening an
annex across College Avenue in the former College Book Shop space. 22
Triangle’s move to the Larkin Building in 1965 was the result of Cornell University’s decision to
expand the merchandise and non-academic departments of its campus store into Sheldon
Court due to lack of space in its Barnes Hall location. The university planned to double the
amount of textbook space in Barnes Hall and the Sheldon Court move was viewed as a
temporary solution to the space shortage. While the Cornell store gained space, Triangle’s new
Larkin Building space was about 500 square feet smaller than its Sheldon Court store, but the
manager and owner, Robert Johnson, planned to develop some of the building’s basement area
19 Ithaca city directories, 1938-1965; Tompkins County Department of Assessment, Tompkins County Tax
Assessment photograph, 1954, Historic Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY.
20 Ithaca Journal, September 26, 1956.
21 Deed of May 1, 1972 conveying 403 College Avenue to Robert G. and Mabel F. Jonson from Francis W. and Rita
F. Egan, book 499, page 880. Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, Ithaca, NY.
22 Cornell Daily Sun, November 12, 1943; September 27, 1938.
to gain more space. He estimated that the move and remodeling would cost $30,000 to
$40,000. Robert Johnson sold the bookstore to the Nebraska Book Company in 1986.23
The Triangle Book Shop continued to operate in the Larkin Building until 1990 when it moved to
301 College Avenue, the former Egan grocery store, operating at that location until 1999 or
2000.24 When Robert and Mabel Johnson sold the Larkin Building to Po Ching and Liang Chun
Po on June 4, 1990, the deed included a restriction against the operation of a retail bookstore in
the building as long as the Nebraska Book Company or its successors owned a bookstore in
Collegetown, or until January 31, 2010.25
The current ground floor occupants of the Larkin Building, Stella’s Restauant and Coffee Shop,
have occupied the building since 1993, and are representative of the type of commercial
activity common in Collegetown today, which has a large number of restaurants but no full
service grocery store and few retail businesses.26
23 Cornell Daily Sun, September 24, 1964; Sisler, Ithaca’s Neighborhoods, 171.
24 Dickman Directory, Ithaca & Tompkins County,2000, 25.
25 Deed of June 4, 1990 conveying 403 College Avenue to Po Ching and Liang Chun Po from Robert G. and Mabel
F. Johnson, book 654, page 493, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, Ithaca, NY.
26 Dickman Directory, Ithaca & Tompkins County, 1993-2000.
Proposed Local Designation, 403 College Ave- The Larkin Building
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held August 22, 2017
Moved by Schroeder, seconded by Jones Rounds and unanimously approved
At the regular monthly meeting on July 11, 2017 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the Larking Building at 403 College Avenue as a local
landmark. A map showing the location of the house 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.
1. 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. Historically significant resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area
which merit designation as local historic landmarks, but which currently have no such
protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and
designated by Common Council. Ideally, this process would take place concurrently
with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-based Collegetown zoning
amendments.
5.N. Collegetown’s cultural, architectural and natural history should be highlighted and
interpreted for both residents and visitors through such elements as markers, signs or
decorative sidewalk panels, in accordance with a thematically and aesthetically
coordinated program.
6.A. As a resource to be used when applying the new design standards, exemplary
existing Collegetown buildings, both new and historic, should be identified which can
serve as sources of inspiration for designers. Suitable newer buildings might include
401, 407 and 409 College Avenue, and suitable older buildings might include not only
those structures selected for historic designation (see item 5.M. above), but other non-
designated older structures displaying attractive proportions or physical design
elements that could spark ideas suitable 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 Larking Block:
The exemplary row of buildings currently defining the east side of College Avenue
between Oak Avenue and Dryden Road is praised in the Collegetown Vision
Statement as being “a striking example of excellence in architectural design within
an existing urban context,” and this opinion is broadly shared by the Ithaca
community.
The aesthetic harmony of this facade row is even more striking because two
component structures are roughly a century old while the other three were built
more recently. Each of these buildings has a well-designed facade in its own right,
but here—unlike other areas of Collegetown—the interplay of old and new creates
a unified streetscape whose aesthetic power is much greater than the sum of its
(already attractive) parts.
Numerous design elements visually relate the individual buildings in this row to
each other and to the streetscape as a whole: (1) All five buildings present roughly
the same height when viewed from College Avenue; (2) the four northern most
buildings are linked by a ground-floor horizontal “base” of consistent height and
red-brick color, which is then carried up vertically by the red-brick Ciaschi Building
at the Dryden Road corner; (3) the upper-story portion of each of the four
northernmost buildings has a harmonious light earthtone color, and is separated
from the other three (above the linked ground-floor “base”) by narrow slots which
provide a visual rhythm to the series of facades; (4) the newer buildings, while
contemporary in expression, display deliberate design references to the older
buildings, so that horizontal elements (though varying in detail) are carried across
all five buildings at the same height, basic rhythms of facade organization are
found on all five buildings, and even decorative features of the older buildings are
echoed by design elements of the newer buildings.
The east side of the 400 block of College Avenue is a major urban planning success,
notable not only within its Collegetown context, but within the context of the City
as a whole, and no incentive (such as substantially increasing the maximum
permitted building height) should be enacted that would provide an economic
incentive to demolish any of the buildings, old or new, that together create this
exceptional urban ensemble.
After the adoption of the Collegetown Plan, a Collegetown Survey was completed, titled
“Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy or Detailed Research; Icons of Collegetown,
Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features”, by Mary Tom lan and
John Schroeder, dated June 14, 2009. This study identified structures worthy of further
research. 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 Colleg e 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 (M-U2) zoning district the purpose and intent of
which are as follows:
The Mixed Use districts accommodate retail, office, service, hotel, and residential
uses, and in most cases, multiple uses will be combined within the same building. The
purpose is to create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce each other
and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood.
Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts allow the highest density
within the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Redevelopment is anticipated and
encouraged (with the exception of designated local landmarks), and the intent is to
concentrate the majority of additional development within these districts.
Local designation will not affect building uses permitte d 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 five stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition
of a sixth story. 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 Improvements
Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of Colleg e Avenue, including the 400
block within which this property is located. Improvements, 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
4. 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 Ithaca
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 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work
commences.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 13, 2017
RE: LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE LARKIN BUILDING AT 403
COLLEGE AVENUE.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, 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 July 11, 2017, the ILPC conducted a public hearing for the purpose of
considering a proposal to designate the Larkin Building at 403 College Ave., as a
local landmark, and
WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria 1, 2, and 3, defining a “Local
Landmark,” under Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code and on July 11, 2017,
voted to recommend the designation of the Larkin Building at 403 College Ave.,
and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file
a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the
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 August 22, 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 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 Larkin Building at 403 College Avenue, meets criteria for local
designation, as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows:
1. it 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 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
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 13, 2017
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council [approves/denies] the designation of the Larkin
Building at 403 College Ave and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax
parcel #64.-2-29 as a local landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: 0
Seconded: 0
In favor: 0
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
Proposed Local Designation, 403 College Ave- The Larkin Building
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held August 22, 2017
Moved by Schroeder, seconded by Jones Rounds and unanimously approved
At the regular monthly meeting on July 11, 2017 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the Larking Building at 403 College Avenue as a local
landmark. A map showing the location of the house 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.
1. 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. Historically significant resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area
which merit designation as local historic landmarks, but which currently have no such
protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and
designated by Common Council. Ideally, this process would take place concurrently
with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-based Collegetown zoning
amendments.
5.N. Collegetown’s cultural, architectural and natural history should be highlighted and
interpreted for both residents and visitors through such elements as markers, signs or
decorative sidewalk panels, in accordance with a thematically and aesthetically
coordinated program.
6.A. As a resource to be used when applying the new design standards, exemplary
existing Collegetown buildings, both new and historic, should be identified which can
serve as sources of inspiration for designers. Suitable newer buildings might include
401, 407 and 409 College Avenue, and suitable older buildings might include not only
those structures selected for historic designation (see item 5.M. above), but other non-
designated older structures displaying attractive proportions or physical design
elements that could spark ideas suitable 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 Larking Block:
The exemplary row of buildings currently defining the east side of College Avenue
between Oak Avenue and Dryden Road is praised in the Collegetown Vision
Statement as being “a striking example of excellence in architectural design within
an existing urban context,” and this opinion is broadly shared by the Ithaca
community.
The aesthetic harmony of this facade row is even more striking because two
component structures are roughly a century old while the other three were built
more recently. Each of these buildings has a well-designed facade in its own right,
but here—unlike other areas of Collegetown—the interplay of old and new creates
a unified streetscape whose aesthetic power is much greater than the sum of its
(already attractive) parts.
Numerous design elements visually relate the individual buildings in this row to
each other and to the streetscape as a whole: (1) All five buildings present roughly
the same height when viewed from College Avenue; (2) the four northern most
buildings are linked by a ground-floor horizontal “base” of consistent height and
red-brick color, which is then carried up vertically by the red-brick Ciaschi Building
at the Dryden Road corner; (3) the upper-story portion of each of the four
northernmost buildings has a harmonious light earthtone color, and is separated
from the other three (above the linked ground-floor “base”) by narrow slots which
provide a visual rhythm to the series of facades; (4) the newer buildings, while
contemporary in expression, display deliberate design references to the older
buildings, so that horizontal elements (though varying in detail) are carried across
all five buildings at the same height, basic rhythms of facade organization are
found on all five buildings, and even decorative features of the older buildings are
echoed by design elements of the newer buildings.
The east side of the 400 block of College Avenue is a major urban planning success,
notable not only within its Collegetown context, but within the context of the City
as a whole, and no incentive (such as substantially increasing the maximum
permitted building height) should be enacted that would provide an economic
incentive to demolish any of the buildings, old or new, that together create this
exceptional urban ensemble.
After the adoption of the Collegetown Plan, a Collegetown Survey was completed, titled
“Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy or Detailed Research; Icons of Collegetown,
Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features”, by Mary Tom lan and
John Schroeder, dated June 14, 2009. This study identified structures worthy of further
research. 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 Colleg e 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 (M-U2) zoning district the purpose and intent of
which are as follows:
The Mixed Use districts accommodate retail, office, service, hotel, and residential
uses, and in most cases, multiple uses will be combined within the same building. The
purpose is to create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce each other
and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood.
Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts allow the highest density
within the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Redevelopment is anticipated and
encouraged (with the exception of designated local landmarks), and the intent is to
concentrate the majority of additional development within these districts.
Local designation will not affect building uses permitte d 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 five stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition
of a sixth story. 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 Improvements
Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of Colleg e Avenue, including the 400
block within which this property is located. Improvements, 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
4. 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 Ithaca
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 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work
commences.
8‐Sep‐17
Deleted: 6‐Sep‐17
Objecting to the DEC Permitting Cargill Mine Expansion
Without Proper Environmental Review
WHEREAS the first Cayuga Salt Mine shaft was drilled in 1915 and Cargill, Inc. (“Cargill”)’s
permitted mining reserves extend into the Town of Lansing, Town of Ulysses, and south into the
southern end of Cayuga Lake to within one mile of the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca recognizes the economic, social, recreational, and ecological
importance of Cayuga Lake and its watershed to the State and to the local community; and
WHEREAS New York has established the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process to
systematically consider environmental factors early in the planning stages of actions and projects
that are directly undertaken, funded or approved by local, regional and state agencies;1 and
WHEREAS environmental review early in the planning stages allows a project to be vetted, and
modified as needed, to avoid adverse impacts on the environment;2 and
WHEREAS Cargill’s proposed shaft construction, the mining of the one‐mile connecting tunnel, and
expanded salt mining have potential adverse impacts that have not been properly reviewed and
vetted under SEQR in contrast to the Hampton Corners Salt Mine in Livingston County which is
carrying out its second Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and
WHEREAS adverse impacts include impacts on local water resources, including groundwater and
the waters of Cayuga Lake and various ways in which substantial quantities of salt would be
incidentally brought into contact with such local water resources, not only during current mining
operations but also during the post‐operational period after the mine is closed and abandoned; and
WHEREAS “the abandonment of dry salt mines raises a difficult problem, as post‐abandonment
mine flooding is, in most cases, highly probable, with possible severe consequences at ground
level;”3 and
WHEREAS “the majority of salt mines succumb to collapse and flooding”4 and “flooding, whether
intentional or inadvertent, is …‘game over’ for successful containment or control of the salinity
associated with the brine that will inevitably be squeezed out of the mine;”5 and
WHEREAS since 1975, and despite several applications for mine expansion by Cargill, the NYSDEC
has never requested a full environmental impact study of the mining risks; and
1 6 NYCRR Part 617; SEQR Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2010, Introduction
2 Ibid.
3 P. Bérest, B. Brouard, and B. Feuga, Dry Mine Abandonment, Abstract, Solution Mining Research Institute
(SMRI) Technical Conference Paper, Wichita, KS, Spring 2004. (http://www.brouard-
consulting.com/sites/default/files/smri-wichita.pdf)
4 A. Michalski, 1/31/17 comment letter to DEC.
5 R. Vaughan, 12/9/16 comment letter to DEC.
8‐Sep‐17
Deleted: 6‐Sep‐17
WHEREAS the 1994 collapse and flooding of the Retsof salt mine in Livingston County and
subsequent salinization of an adjacent fresh water aquifer provide an example of various adverse
impacts and some of the factors implicated in salt‐mine collapse; and
WHEREAS these and other potential adverse impacts on the environment should be subject to full
and proper environmental review under SEQR; and
WHEREAS the NYSDEC reviewed the Cargill Shaft 4 project and concluded that the action meets
their standards, and on 16 August 2017 issued an applicable permit without full environmental
review of the project in its entirety; now therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the City of Ithaca joins with other Cayuga Lake stakeholders in a soon‐to‐be‐filed
Article 78 proceeding to require environmental review under SEQR pertaining to Cargill’s Shaft 4
project and all proposed construction and expansion of the Cargill Mine; and be it further
RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded by the City Clerk to Governor Andrew
Cuomo, NYSDEC Commissioner Basil Seggos, State Senators Patricia Helming and Thomas O’Mara,
Senate Leader John Flanagan, Senate Minority Leader Andrea Stewart‐Cousins, Assemblywoman
Barbara Lifton, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, Assembly Minority leader Brian Kolb, Chair of the
Assembly’s Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation Steve Englebright, Village of
Trumansburg Mayor Martin Petrovic, and Tompkins County Legislature Chair Michael Lane.
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: September 5, 2017
Re: Proposal to Restrict South Hill In-Fill Development
This memo is intended to address concerns that have been raised regarding in-fill development in
the South Hill neighborhood.
Many city residents attended the August 9, 2017, Planning Committee meeting to express
concerns about the proliferation of in-fill student housing that is taking place on South Hill,
addressing the degradation on both the aesthetic qualities and the character of the neighborhood.
Residents requested that the City consider rezoning the area in order to restrict this type of
development, specifically manufactured duplex housing. Planning Committee members
directed staff to explore options for dealing with this issue.
The predominant zoning in this area is R-1b and R-2a with some smaller R-3b districts. The R-1
and R-2 districts are intended to be lower density, restricted to 1 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 (in accordance with zoning) can be met
for each building, a property owner may construct multiple primary structures on one lot, which
is the trend we are currently seeing.
Most, if not all new housing units recently constructed, are manufactured duplex housing units.
We have seen as many as five new duplexes on a parcel that already contained two existing
homes (that were converted to rentals), for a total of seven rental buildings containing +/- 36
bedrooms. These units are geared towards students, having the potential to significantly change
the character of this neighborhood, in both demographics and behavior.
As part of the phase two Comprehensive Plan for the City, staff has begun working on two area
plans in the City. It is recommended that once these plans are completed, South Hill be
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
considered for the next area of study. This will allow the neighborhood to weigh in on a vision
for this area and for the City to develop a plan for sensible growth and development. In addition,
staff recommends that the Council consider a change in the zoning to prevent further
uncontrolled growth until a vision and plan for this area can be completed. In order to do this,
staff recommends that one of following options be implemented in the area shown on the
attached map.
The first option would be to halt all development by instituting a temporary moratorium on any
new construction in the South Hill area. This option would allow the City to take time to develop
a vision and plan that would include recommendations for zoning changes. This option would
require the City to begin this planning process immediately in order to have a plan completed
before the moratorium expires. This may be difficult, in that the City is already in the process of
completing several other plans including two neighborhood plans.
A second option would be to rezone the area to R-1a. The R-1a zoning district requires larger
lot sizes and restricts the number of occupants living in a dwelling unit. This would make in-fill
development more difficult. However, it may also put some of the existing properties out of
conformance with zoning.
The third option is to create an overlay zoning district for this area 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.
Once the Committee has determined which course of action is most favorable, staff will draft and
circulate an ordinance and environmental review and will return to the Committee with
comments for further discussion before a recommendation is made to Common Council.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me
at 274-6410.
M ITC H E L L S T
C OD D ING TON R D EDDY STE BUF FA L O ST
GIL
E
S
ST
STATEROUTE366
E STATE ST
W B U F FA L O S T
HUDSON STE S ENE C A S T
VALENT I N E PLS CAYUGA STDRYDEN RD
W SE N E C A S T
W S TAT E S T
B
R
A
ND
O
N
PLSENECAWAYW G R E E N S T COLLEGE AVEW C L I N TO N S T
C
R
E
S
C
E
N
T P
LE SPENCER STE G R E E N S T
FOUNTAINST
GRANDVIEWAVE
C O LUM B I A S T
E C L I N TON ST
S TITUSAVEN TITUSA VEGRANDVIEWPLSTEWART AVESPRINGLNDEWITTPLOR C H A R D PL
CO OK S TGLEN PLWILLETSPLEDDY STH IL LV I E W P LTERRACE PLNAURORASTSAGE PLELSTONPLN TIOGA STPEARSALL PL
SE
N
E
C
A
W
AY
B OO L STN QUARRY STN CAYUGA STN GENEVA STFROSH ALY
HUDSONSTEXTSCHUYLER PLPARKER STS GENEVA STHAWTHORNE PL
HUDSO N HTSW
O
O
DCOCK
ST
SOUTH HILL TERJAMES STSQUARRYSTCHAR
L
E
S
S
T
RENZETTIPL
P R O S P E C T ST
PL EAS A N T S T
CAT H ERINE S T
LINDEN AVEWSPENCERSTBLAIR STOSMUNPLTURNER PLCOTTAGEPLGRAN D V IE W C TS GENEVA STFERRI
SPLSIXMILECREEKW ALKH U D SO N PL
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2017Data Source: City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, 2017Map Prepared by: GIS Program, City of Ithaca, NY, August, 2017±0 160 320 Feet
South Hill Zoning
ZONE
B-1a
I-1
P-1
R-1a
R-1b
R-2a
R-3aa
R-3b
South Hill Planning Area
Municipal Border
Waterway
Total Parcels: 485Owner-Occupied Residences: 189 or 39%Owner-Occupied Residences with Rental Unit(s): 24 or 5%Bed & Breakfast: 2 or <1%Rental Properties: 223 or 46%Vacant: 23 or 5%Parks: 2 or <1%Non-Residential Uses: 22 or 5%
GI
L
ES ST
E STATE ST
HUDSON STS AURORA STS ALBANY STS CAYUGA STS PLAIN STS TITU S AVEN TITU S AVEW S TAT E S T
C O L U M B I A S T
W G R E E N S T
S GENEVA STW OO D S T
V A LLE Y R D
H I L LV I E W P L
W C L I N T O N S T
E G R E E N S T
TURNER PLELMIRA RDITHACA RDFAYETTE STBLAIR STP L E A S A N T S T EDDY STCO DDING TO N RDSPENCER RDC
R
E
S
C
E
N
T P
LW SPENCER STC E N T E R S T
P R O S P E C T S T
WATER STH U D SO N PL LINDEN AVEPEARSALL PL
C O O K S T
COLLEGE AVEBRYANT AVE
SOUTH HILL TERGRANDVIEW AVE
PA R K ST
MORRIS HTSDELAWARE AVEH Y E R S S T
R ID G E D A L E R DIRVING P L
E SPENCER STFERRIS PLHUDSO N HTSM ITC H E LL S T
BRIDGE STE CL INTON ST JAMES STBRAND
O
N PLS QUARRY STELSTON PLCOTTAGE PLS GENEVA STS PLAIN STProposed South Hill Planning Area
Legend
City Boundary
Parks
Waterway
South Hill Planning Area
Southside Planning Area
¯
0 0.1 0.2 Miles
August 9, 2017
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, August 9, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Josephine
Martell, Cynthia Brock, and Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Rob Gearhart
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick and Alderperson George
McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Nels Bohn, Director
of Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Dan Cogan,
Chief of Staff; Tom Parsons, Fire Chief;
Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: None
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There were no changes made to the agenda.
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Amendment #1 to the 2017 City of Ithaca Action Plan
(HUD)
Alderperson Martell moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
No one from the public was present to speak.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Martell. Carried unanimously.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Fay Gougakis, the Commons, spoke regarding the bike rack design project. She
has been biking in the City for years and feels she is not respected. The City does
not protect cyclists. The bike rack design project is a waste of money and effort.
The City needs to focus on safety first.
Karen Gellman, 207 Columbia Street, has lived there for 20+ years. She spoke on
the Columbia Street development. There are too many people, cars, lack of trees,
etc. One of the issues in the neighborhood is poor drainage, the more
development, the more problems; there are too many students who don’t know
how to behave. She asked the City to take another look at the R1 and R2 zones.
John and Rita Graves and Verlaine Boyd, 319 and 315 Pleasant Street. The City
needs a moratorium in the South Hill area. South Hill is being transferred from a
quiet, pleasant neighborhood to a student “ghetto”. Is this what the Planning
Department wants for the City? The parties are numerous, so large the police are
afraid to break them up, etc. If development continues as is currently, we will be in
big trouble.
Verlaine Boyd, 315 Pleasant Street, spoke against the South Hill development.
What is the law for owner occupancy? Is the City in control or are the student
landlords in charge?
Ian Golden, 517 Hudson Street, is a graduate of Ithaca College and agrees that
the students do bring vibrancy to the neighborhoods; but too much, is too much.
He supports stopping the process and institute a moratorium for a bit.
Jed Sheckler, 142 Hawthorne Place, has been in the area for about 20 years. He
is raising three young children and supports the others’ comments. We need to
step back as a community and see what we are doing. We need a plan. The
developers do whatever they want and are allowed to do so.
Heather Lambert and Casey Porter, 304 Hudson Street, we have always had a
great neighborhood, but what’s happening is young students are moving in and
getting trashed, passing out in our yard, throwing up in our lawn, students urinate,
and throw garbage, etc. A beautiful neighborhood is being destroyed. She’s
concerned about that as well as the safety of the students.
Mayor Svante Myrick joined the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Henry Granison, 107 Oxford Place, spoke regarding the South Hill development
issues. He agrees with the ‘student ghetto’ terminology. It’s happening.
Ken Young, 228 Columbia Street, commented on the new project at 217 Columbia
Street. It is yet another student housing project. He renovates and sells home in
this area to families, not rented to students. The Cosentini project on Aurora Street
has been named as a similar ‘guide’ to the Columbia Street project. These areas
are far different. One of the grander houses on Hudson Street has been bought up
and cut up for student housing. He quoted many of the City Code statements that
contradict the City’s actions to date. He urges a moratorium. The Town of Ithaca
is working on a solution in their municipality. The City should follow suite.
Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street, near Therm. She worked with INHS to buy
this house. Prior to her buying, there were developers who wanted to bring in
student housing but were not able to due to the zoning restrictions. She agrees
that a moratorium should be in place and make zoning restricted to student
housing.
Penny VanSchoick, 221 Columbia Street, lives right next to the proposed new
development at 217 Columbia Street. She is the last owner occupied on the block.
She is afraid that down the road she won’t be able to sell her house to anybody but
Charlie O’Conner.
Janet Fortess, 225 Columbia Street, is now the senior person on the street. She
too enjoys the energy of the students, but enough is enough. She would like a
moratorium put in place. When she first bought her home it was a two-family
dwelling. She has since converted it to a one-family dwelling.
Pam Mackesey, 323 Pleasant Street, with all the development happening, there
are no back yards, no parking, etc. We don’t have to make it an ugly and
inhabitable place to live. The City needs to step up and do something. The
landlords who rent to the students don’t care about the neighborhood or the
families that live there. They are all about the money they make.
Chris McNamara, 122 Pearsall Place, attended Ithaca College as a student and
now is a faculty member there. She has paid off her home and is now looking at
an empty lot that she could add another dwelling to. That’s not what her family
would like to do. We worked hard to pay off our home. We don’t want to live next
to the students.
David Beer, 311 Hudson Street, a local landlord with his parents. His parents’
home will gradually decrease due to the surrounding student housing. The notion
that the zoning (R1 and R2) was written to allow this dense housing to happen
needs to be looked at again. It will benefit the South Hill area a great deal.
Charlie O’Connor, owner of 217 Columbia Street. He had a total different vision
for 217 Columbia Street. He’s exploring different ideas. As a developer, he looked
at what zoning allowed and went from there. He further stated that there will be a
meeting to talk in depth about this project scheduled for next week in City Hall on
Thursday, August 17th, at 5:30 p.m.
4) Updates, Announcements, Reports
a) Community Bike Rack Design Project – JoAnn Cornish
JoAnn Cornish informed the committee that this project will be covered by a grant
received by the City. The Board of Public Works still needs to give their go ahead
before anything further can be done.
5) Action Items (Voting to send onto Council)
a) Amendment #1 to the 2017 City of Ithaca Action Plan (HUD)
2017 Action Plan - Program Amendment #1, Reallocate HOME Funds Declined
by Lakeview Health Services, Inc.
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
Whereas, the City adopted 2017 Action Plan allocated $50,000 in HOME funds to assist the Lakeview
Ithaca project, a 50‐unit affordable rental housing building sponsored by Lakeview Health Services,
Inc., (Lakeview), and
Whereas, on June 22, 2017, Lakeview declined the HOME funding award for the project due to
regulatory requirements triggered by receipt of HOME federal funds, which are projected to create
both a financial and administrative burden far in excess of the $50,000 funding award, and
Whereas, on June 26, 2017, the City received formal notice that its FY17 HOME award declined by
16% from the prior year’s award, thereby requiring a pro‐rata funding reduction in all HOME‐
assisted projects, and
Whereas, the Lakeview award declined to $43,708.16 from $50,000, and
Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) is designated by the City of Ithaca as the
Lead Agency to develop, administer and implement the HUD Entitlement grant program,
including funds received through the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, and
Whereas, the City’s HUD Citizen Participation Plan requires a public hearing and Common Council
approval for a substantial amendment to the Action Plan, such as reallocation of more than $25,000,
and
Whereas, at their July 27, 2017 meeting, the IURA recommended reallocating funds awarded to
Lakeview to restore funding cuts to other HOME‐assisted projects; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the IURA‐recommended
program amendment #1 to the FY17 HUD Action Plan to reallocate HOME funding as follows:
Project Name Sponsor Funding Change Final Funding
Lakeview Ithaca Lakeview Health
Services
Decrease:
$43,708.16
$0.00
402 S. Cayuga Street Habitat of Tompkins
&Cortland Counties
Increase:
$10,066.95
$80,000.00
Housing Scholarship
Program
The Learning Web Increase:
$8,253.89
$65,592.00
Security Deposit
Assistance 2017‐18
Catholic Charities of
Tompkins/Tioga
Increase:
$5,379.52
$42,750.00
Unallocated HOME
Funds
Increase:
$20,007.80
$20,007.80
j:\community development\entitlement grants\cdbg 2017\action plan\reso pedc fy17 action plan program amendment #1 8‐9‐17.docx
6) Discussion
a) Development Patterns on South Hill
Chair Murtagh thanked all who spoke on this issue during the public comment
period.
Mayor Myrick stated that we can’t fix the problem without building new student
housing. He would agree and propose a moratorium while we complete the
neighborhood plan. He would support a moratorium on all housing. To propose it only
student housing is discriminating and illegal. When you use the term ‘student ghetto’ it
undermines your message.
Alderperson Brock stated that the first person who raised issue on this was
George McGonigal. He raised the red flag. He sent messages to the list serve, etc.
Despite his efforts, it didn’t work. She also thanked Ken Young with all his research and
work. She absolutely is in favor of a moratorium, but not on all housing. The existing
R1, R2, and R3 zones are fine to offer one dwelling per parcel. This moratorium should
be put in place city wide.
She also thanked Charlie O’Connor for speaking tonight and for agreeing on a
public meeting to discuss this project.
We have three new university presidents coming on board this year. At State
College, when the administration noticed three students having the same address, they
flagged the City. This might be something to put in place here.
Alderperson McGonigal thanked all who spoke tonight including Charlie
O’Connor and the Mayor. He also praised Alderperson Brock for her forethought on
how to correct the problem. He stated that students should live on campus.
Homeowners are selling their homes to leave all the student housing around them. He
stated that he thinks South Hill is already a dense area. He sees a problem with
allowing a second dwelling on one parcel. No family would be able to afford to buy such
parcels. He agrees that a moratorium is in order.
JoAnn Cornish thanked Alderperson Brock for pointing out that the zoning has
been in place for a very long time. It is only recently that we’ve seen an influx of this
type of density. She further pointed out the inspection cycle for each type of housing.
Single family homes have a five-year inspection cycle. A lot can happen in five years –
bedrooms are changed into different rooms, etc.
She agrees that a moratorium is a good idea. The City is already working on the
Southside Plan, Waterfront Plan, and the Parks Master Plan. Our staff is stretched very
thin.
Alderperson Brock stated that it was a complete shock that is was even possible
to add multiple dwellings on one parcel.
Chair Murtagh stated that in-fill density is needed. Neighborhoods are all
different. This isn’t shutting down housing for students. The next step is to how to
move forward.
Mayor Myrick stated that if the comprehensive plan were in place, there may be
more housing on campus with the bars remaining downtown and bus transportation
from downtown to campus and back.
Alderperson Brock stated that the increase of student parties, etc. is due to the
new tools available to the students i.e., social media, etc.
Chair Murtagh stated that staff will take all this input into consideration and
discuss it at the next meeting.
b) Future of College Avenue Fire Station
The question surrounding the future of the College Avenue Fire Station is, should
we sell and build a new state-of-the art building (s). Chief of Staff Dan Cogan walked
the group what has been done to date.
The City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1M to relocate the fire
station. If this is not done soon, the grant will be taken away.
The Facilities Master Plan brought this to light. The existing fire station sits right
next to the Nines. There is a proposal for the Nines – do we want to keep it or relocate
it?
A number of different scenarios were discussed:
1. Refurbish the current station
2. Move and build a new station at Maple Avenue
3. Build at a perfect site (undetermined where that might be)
The option of consolidating the central and Collegetown stations were also
discussed. Converting the current College Avenue station as a mixed-use property
was also discussed.
Mayor Myrick left the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) July 2017
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed
unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.