HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-17 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting Agenda1PEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: October 11, 2017
TIME: 6:00 pm
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)Public Hearing – South Hill Overlay District
3)Public Comment
4)Announcements, Updates, and Reports
5)Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a)Assessment of Fair Housing:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/6952
b)South Hill Overlay District
c)Proposed Local Landmark Designation of the Chacona Block
at 411‐415 College Avenue
6)Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a)Design Guidelines for Collegetown and Downtown:
Collegetown:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6923
Downtown:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6924
7)Review and Approval of Minutes
a)September 2017 – (Sent under separate cover)
8)Adjournment
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Anisa Mendizabal, IURA
Planner
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
6:00
6:05
6:15
6:30
6:35
6:50
7:15
8:00
8:30
8:35
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, October 10th, 2017.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
October 11, 2017
Assessment of Fair Housing – HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) receives an annual grant funding from the U.S. Department
of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement program, which requires the City to adopt
and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) by November 4, 2017 as a condition for
continued funding, and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer,
implement and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance with all applicable
regulations, and
WHEREAS, the IURA has conducted community engagement activities, analyzed fair housing
issues and completed a draft Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), and
Whereas, Federal fair housing law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, disability or familial status, and
WHEREAS, fair housing issues restrict housing choice and access to opportunity for protected
classes, and include:
Patterns of segregation
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
Disparities in access to opportunity
Disproportionate housing need, and
WHEREAS, the AFH utilizes HUD‐provided data and local information to assess housing issues;
identifies contributing factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate or increase the severity of
one or more housing issues; and develops goals to address barriers to fair housing, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 13, 2017 during the development of the
AFH, and
WHEREAS, the draft AFH is available for a 30‐day comment period ending October 30, 2017,
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the City of Ithaca
Assessment of Fair Housing, Ithaca, NY as amended to incorporate comments received.
j:\community development\fair housing\afh 2017\reso pedc adopt afh 10‐11‐17.doc
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: October 3, 2017
Re: Proposal to Create a South Hill Overlay District
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to create a South Hill
Overlay District that would create a restriction whereby only one primary structure would be
allowed per tax parcel.
This proposal was discussed at the September 13, 2017 Planning and Economic Development
Committee meeting. At that meeting staff was directed to circulate the ordinance for comments.
An environmental review of this action has been completed, and the draft Full Environmental
Assessment Form and ordinance are enclosed. The proposed ordinance and environmental
assessment have been circulated to the City Planning Board, the Conservation Advisory Council,
the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Tompkins County Planning Department and various other City
staff and departments. Enclosed are comments that have been received to date. Also enclosed for
your consideration are resolutions establishing lead agency and determining environmental
significance.
Currently, the term “primary structure” is not defined in the City Code. The enclosed draft
ordinance has been amended to include a definition of the term. This is a minor change to the
ordinance for clarification and does not require recirculation. The added language is tracked in the
ordinance.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at
274-6410.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
Draft Resolution
10/3/17
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” In Order to Create a South Hill
Overlay District – Declaration of Lead Agency
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require
that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental
review of projects in accordance with local and state
environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local
environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is an “Type 1” Action
pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
Ordinance, which requires environmental review under CEQR; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does
hereby declare itself lead agency for the environmental review
of the proposal to amending the Municipal Code Of The City Of
Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Create a South Hill
Overlay District.
Draft Resolution
10/3/17
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of
Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” In Order to Create a
South Hill Overlay District– Declaration of Environmental
Significance
1. WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to
amend the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to create a South Hill
Overlay District, and
2.WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2, and 3 (FEAF),
dated September 15, 2007 and
3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “TYPE I” Action under
the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
4. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca,
acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by
planning staff; now, therefore, be it
1. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in
this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Full
Environmental Assessment Form, dated September 15, 2017
and be it further
2. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in
this matter, hereby determines that the proposed action
at issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is
unnecessary, and be it further
3. 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.
10/6/2017
Page 1 of 3
Deleted: 10/4/2017
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” in Order to Establish a South
Hill Overlay District
ORDINANCE NO. ____
1.WHEREAS, residents of the South Hill neighborhood have
expressed concerns that rapid in-fill development is taking
place in the neighborhood and will have a drastic impact on
both the aesthetic qualities and the character of the
neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, currently, this area is predominantly zoned R-1b,
R-2a and R-3b, and
2.WHEREAS, the R-1 and R-2 districts are intended to be lower
density districts that are restricted to 1 and 2 family
houses and larger lot sizes and these zones are usually
located in areas where there are established owner occupied
neighborhoods, and
3.WHEREAS, existing zoning regulations permit properties to
construct multiple primary structures on a single tax
parcel if they are able to meet the area requirements for
each additional structure, and
4.WHEREAS, recent development projects in the South Hill
neighborhood have been able to meet area requirements
allowing development of multiple primary structures on one
parcel, which has the potential to significantly change the
character of this neighborhood, and
5.WHEREAS, in September of 2015, the Common Council adopted
Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
in 2016, the City began working on Phase II of the
Comprehensive Plan, which is a series of neighborhood and
area plans, and
6.WHEREAS, in order to allow residents to participate in
creating a vision for this area and for the City to develop
a plan for sensible growth and development, the City
anticipates beginning work on an area plan for the South
Hill neighborhood within the next year, and
10/6/2017
Page 2 of 3
Deleted: 10/4/2017
7.WHEREAS, to ensure that any ongoing development while the
plan is being developed supports the goals of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, the City is proposing the creation of
an overlay zoning district that would restrict properties
to constructing only one primary structure per tax parcel,
and
8.WHEREAS, this overlay district will be used to establish
the boundaries of the South Hill Study Area, and
9.WHEREAS, once the City completes the planning process for
this area, it can determine whether there are locations
where in-fill development is more appropriate and whether
design guidelines are needed to ensure new development is
in line with the neighborhood character, now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-3(“Definitions and
Word Usage”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended in order to add a definition of the term Primary
Structure, to read as follows:
Primary Structure
A single structure (located on a parcel) containing a use
permitted in the zoning district in which it is located.
Section 2. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-4(“Zoning
Districts”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby
amended to add a South Hill Overlay District (SHOD).
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, Zoning Map of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to create
a South Hill Overlay District (SHOD) to include properties
located within the boundaries displayed on the map entitled
“Proposed Boundary for South Hill Overlay District-September
2017”, a copy of which is attached and shall be kept on file in
the City Clerk’s office.
Section 4. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-8(“District
Regulations”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended to add a subsection 325-8E. entitled “Additional
Restrictions in the South Hill Area” to read as follows:
10/6/2017
Page 3 of 3
Deleted: 10/4/2017
E. Additional Restrictions in the South Hill Area
(1) South Hill Overlay District Restrictions
a.After the date of this ordinance, any property
located within the South Hill Overlay District
with a zoning designation of R-1 or R-2 is
prohibited from constructing a primary structure
on any parcel already containing one or more
primary structures, and is prohibited from
constructing more than one primary structure on a
parcel containing no primary structures. The
preceding sentence shall not impact future changes
to primary structures existing prior to the
effective date of this paragraph.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
(Prepared by Project Sponsor/Applicant) 4/25/17
NOTE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether proposed action may have a significant
effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form: Parts A through E. Answers to these questions
will be considered part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public
review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is
expected that completion of the FEAF will depend on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research, or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so
indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action: South Hill Overlay District
Location of Action: South Hill Study Area
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 East Green Street
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: New York ZIP: 14850
Business Phone: 607-274-6550 E-Mail: jkusznir@cityofithaca.org
Name of Owner (if different from applicant/sponsor):
Address:
City/Town/Village:State:ZIP:
Business Phone: E-Mail:
Description of Action: The action being considered is the creation of an overlay zoning district that
would prohibit the new construction of a second primary structure on any property located in the
South Hill Overlay District and that contains a zoning designation of R-1 or R-2.
4/25/17 2
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1.Present Land Use: Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other: ____Residential_____________________
2.Total area of project area: _____170 acres _____ (Chosen units also apply to following section.)
Approximate Area (Units in Question 2 above apply to this section.) Currently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural) 25 25
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)].5 .5
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public 10 10
2g. Unvegetated (i.e., rock, earth, or fill)
2h. Roads, Buildings, & Other Paved Surfaces 135 135
2i. Other (indicate type): ___________________
3a. What is the predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): _Sloan-Teel, alluvial land,
Hamlin-Teel, Hamlin, fan-Palmyra____Howard-Chenango, Hudson-Dunkirk, Lordstown-Arnot, Cazenovia-
Ovid Varies
3b. Soil Drainage: Well-Drained: __ of Site
Moderately Well-Drained: 100% of Site
Poorly Drained: ______% of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? unknown (feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table? unknown (feet)
5.Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes:
0-10% 10-15% 100 % %
15% or greater %
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it
contain, a building, site, or district listed on or
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
Yes No N/A
6b. Or a designated local landmark or located in a
local landmark district?
Yes No N/A
7.Do hunting and/or fishing opportunities currently
exist in the project area? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” identify each
species:
— PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY QUESTION. INDICATE “N/A,” IF NOT APPLICABLE. —
4/25/17 3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION (concluded)
8.Does project site contain any species of plant
and/or animal life identified as threatened or
endangered?
Yes No N/A
According to: __Unique Natural Area Inventory of
Tompkins County the UNA 156, which borders this
district, has been found to contain at least 1 species
of plant that has been identified by NYS as
endangered, threatened, or rare. each species:
___________ Specifically the broad beech fern, the
northern beech fern, and the walking fern are listed as
having been found in this area and as being
exploitable vulnerable. Identify ____________
9.Are there any unique or unusual landforms on
project site (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)?
Yes No N/A
Describe: ________________________________
10.Is project site currently used by community or
neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area?
Yes No N/A
If yes, explain: Hillview and Columbia Street Parks
are in the study area as well as outdoor recreational
amenites associated with South Hill School.
11.Does present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community? Yes No N/A
Describe: Six Mile Creek , Views of East Hill,
Cayuga Lake
12.Is project within or contiguous to a site
designated a Unique Natural Area (UNA) or
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
Yes No N/A
Describe: _Adjacent to UNA 156___________
13. Stream(s) within or contiguous to project area: a. Names of stream(s) or river(s) to which it is a
tributary: Six Mile Creek
14.Lakes, ponds, or wetland areas within or
contiguous to project area:
a. Name(s): There is approximately .5 acres of
wetlands along the border of the district
adjacent to the Six Mile Creek.
15.Has site been used for land disposal of solid
and/or hazardous wastes?Yes No N/A
Describe:
16.Is site served by existing public utilities?
a.If “Yes,” does sufficient capacity exist to
allow connection?
b.If “Yes,” will improvements be necessary to
allow connection?
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
4/25/17 4
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate): ______________
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor either in acres: The total area being re-zoned is
approximately 170 acres. This area is owned by various private and public entities.
1b. Project acreage developed: 135 Acres, initially: NA Acres, ultimately: NA
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: NA
1d. Length of project in miles (if appropriate): NA or feet: NA
1e. If project is an expansion, indicate percentage change proposed: NA
1f. Number of existing off-street parking spaces: NA Proposed: NA
1g. Maximum vehicular trips generated (on completion of project) per day: Unknown Per hour: ______
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure in feet: The tallest structure permitted in this district is 40’. The
proposed overlay district will not change maximum allowable height.
1i. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy: NA
2.Specify what type(s) of natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the
site: NA Or added to the site: NA
3.Specify what type(s) of vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from
the site: Acres: NA Type(s) of Vegetation: NA
4.Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed for this project?
Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: ________________________________________________
5.Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace vegetation removed during construction? NA
6.If single-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition)
7.If multi-phase project, anticipated period of construction: NA months (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: NA
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase: NA month NA year (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase: NA month NA year.
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No N/A
8.Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain: NA
9.Number of jobs generated during construction: NA After project is completed: NA
10.Number of jobs eliminated by this project: NA Explain: NA
11.Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain
4/25/17 5
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (concluded)
12a. Is surface or sub-surface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes No N/A If yes, explain:
12b. If #12a. If “Yes,” indicate type of waste (e.g., sewage, industrial, etc.):
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged?
13.Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: No change in water surface area is
anticipated as a result of this action. Any projects that are proposed in the new zoning will have to
undergo a separate environmental review as part of the site plan approval process.
14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100-year
Flood plain? Yes No N/A
14b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to:
Cayuga Inlet Fall Creek Cascadilla Creek Cayuga Lake Six Mile Creek
Silver Creek? (Check all that apply.)
14c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 of the ECL? Yes No N/A
14d. If #14a., b., or c. is “Yes,” explain: The district is bordered by approximately .5 acres of wetlands.
15a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes No N/A
15b. If #15a. If “Yes,” will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No N/A
15c. If #15b. is “Yes,” give name of disposal facility: NA and location: NA
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
16.Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” specify:
17.Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of historic
Places, or a local landmark, or in a landmark district? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
18.Will project produce odors? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: No odors are anticipated as a
result of this action. Any projects that are proposed in the new zoning will have to undergo a
separate environmental review as part of the site plan review process.
19.Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise-level during construction?
Yes No N/A After construction? Yes No N/A No noise is anticipated as a
result of this action. Any projects that are proposed in the new zoning will have to undergo a
separate environmental review as part of the site plan review process.
20.Will project result in an increase of energy use? Yes No N/A If yes, indicate type(s):
21.Total anticipated water usage per day in gals./day: NA Source of water: NA
4/25/17 6
C. ZONING & PLANNING INFORMATION
1.Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Yes No N/A
If yes, indicate the decision(s) required:
Zoning Amendment Zoning Variance New/Revision of Master Plan Subdivision
Site Plan Review Special Use Permit Resource Management Plan
Other: ____________________
2.What is the current zoning classification of site? ___ B-1a, I-1, P-1, R-1a, R-1b, R-2a, R-3aa, and R-3b
3.If site is developed as permitted by current zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
Current Zoning has approximately 15 acres of land zoned R-1a, which has a maximum building
allowable height of 3 stories and 35’ and maximum lot coverage of 20%; 37 acres of R-1b, which has
a maximum allowable height of 3 stories and 35’ and a maximum lot coverage of 25%; 77 acres of
R-2a, which has a maximum building height of 3 stories and 35’ and a maximum lot coverage of
30%; 10 acres of R-3b, which has a maximum allowable building height of 4 stories and 40’and 40%
lot coverage;1.5 acres of R-3aa, which has a maximum allowable building height of 35’ and 3 stories
and a maximum lot coverage of 35%; 17 acres of I-1, which has a maximum allowable building
height of 4 stories and 40’ and maximum lot coverage of 50%; 6 acres of B-1a, which has a
maximum building height of 4 stories and 40’ and maximum lot coverage of 50%; and 12 acres of P-
1, which has a maximum lot coverage of 35%
4.Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes No N/A Proposed Action will create a
change in allowable development in this district
5.If #4 is “No,” indicate desired zoning: Underlying Zoning will remain. Proposed action is to create an
overlay district. Al properties would be subject to the regulations of their underlying zoning
designation, as well as to additional regulations established by the South Hill Overlay District.
6.If site is developed by proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site? The
maximum potential development will be the same as is allowed by the exisiting zoning, with the
exception of not being permitted to construct multiple primary structures on a lot.
7.Is proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
Yes No N/A If “No,” explain: _____________________________________________
8.What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a ¼-mile radius of the project?
(e.g., R-1a, R-1b) B-1a, B-1b, B-2d, B-4, B-5, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-140, CBD-50, CBD-60, CBD-
85, CR-2, CR-3, CR_4, I-1, P-1, R-1a, R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3aa, R-3b
9.Is proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? Yes No N/A Explain: ________
10a. If proposed action is the Subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? NA
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? The minimum lot size under the existing zoning is 3000 SF in
the R-3b zone. There is no change in lot size proposed.
11.Will proposed action create demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation, education,
police, fire protection, etc.)? Yes No N/A Explain: This proposed action will limit
potential future development and will therefore not result in any additional demand for
community services above existing potential demand. Any future projects will undergo a full
environmental assessment in order to determine their demand.
4/25/17 7
If “Yes,” is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No N/A
Explain: _____________________________
12.Will proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels?
Yes No N/A Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning. Any projects
that are proposed in the new zoning will have to undergo a separate environmental review as part
of the site plan review process.
If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle additional traffic?
Yes No N/A Explain: __________________________________________
4/25/17 8
D. APPROVALS
1.Approvals: Adoption by Common Council Adoption
2a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes No N/A Specify: _________________
2b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes No N/A
If “Yes,” specify: ______________________________________
2c. Local and Regional Approvals:
Agency Yes No Type of
Approval Required
Submittal
Date
Approval
Date
Common Council Adoption
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Planning & Development Board
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
Board of Public Works (BPW)
Fire Department
Police Department
Director of Code Enforcement
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA)
Other: _____________________
4/25/17 9
E. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS
Attach any additional information that may be needed to clarify your project. If there are, or may be, any
adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you
propose to mitigate or avoid them.
F. VERIFICATION
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name: Jennifer Kusznir
Signature:
Title/Role: Senior Planner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/25/17 10
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 2 - Project Impacts
Project Name: South hill Overlay District
Date Created: 9/15/17
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No Not as
a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable
development.
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per
100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project
exceeds 10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where depth to the water table is less
than 3 feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally
within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than
1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges,
geological formations, etc.)? Yes No
Specific land forms (if any): Yes No
4/25/17 11
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of
Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No
Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel
of protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected
water body. Yes No
Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?Yes No Not as a
result of the action, which is for proposed zoning.
A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of
water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek,
Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 12
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Not as a result of the
action, which is for proposed zoning
Project will require discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of source of water that does not have
approval to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a
public water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of
20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an
existing body of water to the extent that there will be an
obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 13
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON WATER (cont.)
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No
Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning.
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts (if any
Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Not as a result of the action, which is for
proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable development.
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour
period per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of
refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs.
per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million
BTUs per hour.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 14
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No
Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list,
using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife
habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year
other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning.
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of
mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 15
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or
community? Yes No Not as a result of the action, which is for proposed zoning, which
will reduce the amount of allowable development.
Proposed land uses or proposed action components
obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Yes No
Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to
users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or
significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of
that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological
importance? Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the
National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or
contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a
landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 16
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or
recreational opportunities? Yes No
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated
as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state
agency? Yes No -See Part III
Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the
resource. Yes No
Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 17
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Not as a result of
the action, which is for proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable development.
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or
goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No
Other impacts:
Yes No
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any
form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single-
or two-family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
4/25/17 18
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during
construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Not as a
result of the action, which is for proposed zoning, which will reduce the amount of allowable
development.
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other
sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local
ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as
noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No
Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or
there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in
any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive,
irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of
solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
4/25/17 19
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.)
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control
of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any
residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No -See
Part III
The population of the city in which the proposed action is
located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human
population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating
services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of
this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or
goals. Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land
use. Yes No
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities,
structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No
Development will create demand for additional community
services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future
actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or
more businesses. Yes No
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
4/25/17 20
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.)
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/25/17 21
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
Part 3 - Project Impacts
Project Name: South Hill Overlay District
Date Created: 9/19/17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The action being considered is the proposed creation of a South Hill Overlay District.
Currently, the South Hill neighborhood is predominantly zoned R-1b, R-2a and R-3b. The R-1 and R-2
districts are intended to be lower density districts that are 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 are able to be met, a property owner may construct multiple primary
structures on one lot. Several recent projects in this overlay zone were large enough to satisfy zoning area
requirements and multiple primary rental structures have been built on one parcel. This recent in-fill trend
has caused concern for residents who feel negatively impacted by the change in the character and aesthetics
of the neighborhood.
In September of 2015, the Common Council adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. In 2016, the City began working on Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, which is a series of
neighborhood and area plans. In order to allow residents to weigh in on a vision for their neighborhood, the
City is working on area plans for sensible growth and development. The City anticipates beginning work on
the South Hill Study Area within the next year. To ensure that development in this area while the plan is
being worked on supports the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the City is proposing the creation an
overlay zoning district that would only allow one primary structure per parcel. An overlay district would
allow the City to establish the study area and restrict further in-fill development. Once the City goes through
the planning process for this area, it can determine whether there are locations where in-fill development is
appropriate and whether design guidelines are needed to ensure the development is in line with the
neighborhood character.
IMPACT ON LAND, WATER, DRAINAGE, AIR - Little to No Impact
The proposed district is bordered by the Six Mile Creek and by approximately .5 acres of wetlands on its
northern border.
However, since the action being evaluated is the adoption of new zoning, it does not contain any immediate
physical impacts on land, water, drainage, plants, or animals. Any new projects that are proposed will need
to undergo a complete environmental review as part of the site plan review process. Furthermore, the
proposed change is expected to be more protective of the environment, as it will limit future potential
development. Therefore the anticipated impacts are expected to be small if any.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES (views, vistas, visual neighborhood character) - Positive Impact
The proposed action may have an impact on the visual character of the neighborhood. The existing zoning
permits multiple primary structures on one parcel. This has the potential to change predominantly owner
occupied neighborhoods into predominantly rental neighborhoods. The proposed action is expected to have
a positive impact in that it will prevent further in-fill development thereby protecting the existing character of
the neighborhood.
4/25/17 22
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS (UNA) - Little to No Impact
The proposed district is bordered by the UNA-156 Six Mile Creek. However, since the action being
evaluated is the adoption of new zoning, it does not contain any immediate impact on the adjacent unique
natural area. Furthermore, the proposed action will reduce the potential development in this area, and is
therefore more protective of the UNA.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD - Positive
Impact
The proposed action has a potential positive impact on the character of the community as it will limit the
amount of density in the neighborhood by only permitting one primary structure per parcel. This is expected
to be a positive impact in helping to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. At the August
meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee of the Common Council, several residents
were in attendance to express concerns over this in-fill development. However, there were also several
people in attendance who felt that the neighborhood was already predominantly rental units and were
supportive of constructing additional housing in this area.
GILES
ST
E STATE ST
HUDSON STS AURORA STS ALBANY STS CAYUGA STS PLAIN STS TITU
S
A
V
E
N TITU
S
A
V
E
W STATE ST
COLUMBIA ST
W GREEN ST
S GENEVA STWOOD ST
VALLE
Y
R
D
HILLVIEW PL
W CLINTON ST
E GREEN ST
TURNER PLELMIRA
R
D ITHACA RDFAYETTE STBLAIR STPLEASANT ST EDDY STCODDI
N
G
T
O
N
R
D
SPENCER RDCRE
SCEN
T
P
LW SPENCER STCENTER ST
PROSPECT ST
WATER STHUDSON PL LINDEN AVEPEARSAL
L
P
L
COOK ST
COLLEGE AVEB
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
SOUTH HILL TERGRAND
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
PARK ST
MORRIS HTSDELAWARE AVEHYERS ST
RIDGED
A
L
E
R
D
IRVING
P
L
E SPENCER STFERRIS PLHUDS
O
N
H
T
S
MITCH
E
L
L
S
T
BRIDGE STE CLINTON ST JAMES ST
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
LS QUARRY STELSTON PLCOTTAGE PLS GENEVA STS PLAIN STProposed Boundary for South Hill Overlay District - September 2017
Legend
South Hill Planning Area
City Boundary
Parks
Waterway ¯0 0.1 0.2 Miles
September 20, 2017
Before the Planning and Economic Development Committee moves the overlay ordinance that will restrict
infill development on to Common Council, I urge the Committee to read or at least skim the report below
titled: Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing In Infill Development . . .
Executive Summary
Smart growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense of place.
Such projects on infill sites have environmental benefits because they can reduce development pressure on
outlying areas, helping to safeguard lands that serve important ecological functions; can reduce the amount that
people drive, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and can lead to the cleanup and
reuse of formerly economically viable but now abandoned sites, including those contaminated with hazardous
substances.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/developer-infill-paper-508b.pdf
—
John Graves
319 Pleasant Street
Ithaca, NY
607-279-4980
United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency
February 2014
www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
SMART GROWTH AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS:
INVESTING IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Office of Sustainable Communities
Smart Growth Program
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Sustainable
Communities with the assistance of Renaissance Planning Group and RCLCO under contract number
EP-W-11-009/010/11. Christopher Coes (Smart Growth America); Alex Barron (EPA Office of Policy);
Dennis Guignet and Robin Jenkins (EPA National Center for Environmental Economics); and Kathleen
Bailey, Matt Dalbey, Megan Susman, and John Thomas (EPA Office of Sustainable Communities)
provided editorial reviews.
EPA Project Leads: Melissa Kramer and Lee Sobel
Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommendation.
This paper is part of a series of documents on smart growth and economic success. Other papers in the
series can be found at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/economic_success.htm.
Cover photos and credits: La Valentina in Sacramento, California, courtesy of Bruce Damonte; Small-lot
infill in Washington, D.C., courtesy of EPA; The Fitzgerald in Baltimore, courtesy of The Bozzuto Group;
and The Maltman Bungalows in Los Angeles, courtesy of Civic Enterprise Development.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
II.Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development ............................................................................ 3
A. Land Assembly .................................................................................................................................. 3
B. Environmental Contamination .......................................................................................................... 4
C. Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 6
D. Financing ........................................................................................................................................... 7
E. Regulatory Approval Process ............................................................................................................ 8
III.Increasing Demand for Infill Development ..................................................................................... 11
A. Residential Development ................................................................................................................ 11
B. Office Development ........................................................................................................................ 13
IV.Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development ............................................................................ 15
A. Reduced Infrastructure Costs ......................................................................................................... 15
B. Better Economic Returns ................................................................................................................ 16
V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 19
i
Executive Summary
Smart growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense
of place. Such projects on infill sites have environmental benefits because they can reduce development
pressure on outlying areas, helping to safeguard lands that serve important ecological functions; can
reduce the amount that people drive, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and
can lead to the cleanup and reuse of formerly economically viable but now abandoned sites, including
those contaminated with hazardous substances.
Developers of all sizes—from independent, small-scale firms to large, publicly traded companies—are
building infill projects throughout the country, and are doing so profitably. Developers have sought infill
projects as an opportunity to participate in flourishing downtown markets. Opportunities for infill
development exist in cities and towns throughout the country—infill is now a significant and growing
share of residential construction in many metropolitan regions. Nevertheless, infill development can
present unique challenges, including:
•Smaller parcels with fragmented ownership.
•Potential for existing environmental contamination.
•Higher capital costs.
•More limited financing options.
•A longer regulatory approval process.
These barriers, real or perceived, can discourage some developers, particularly those without infill
experience. However, these barriers are often surmountable and are beginning to diminish as infill
development becomes more prevalent.
Several trends point to a sustained increase in demand for infill development and a market opportunity
for developers. Consumer preferences for the amenities that infill locations offer are likely to grow as
changing demographics affect the housing market. In the next 20 years, the needs and preferences of
aging baby boomers, new households, and one-person households will drive real estate market trends—
and infill locations are likely to attract many of these people. As more people choose to live in infill
neighborhoods, employers are following, and vice versa. Many corporations are moving to infill
locations, in part because they recognize the competitive advantages of being closer to the central city.
These trends in the residential and commercial sectors give developers economic incentives to find
solutions to the potential barriers to infill, and local governments are helping as well. Lower
infrastructure costs and higher rent and sales prices for infill projects will help make infill projects
profitable for developers, supporting neighborhoods that are better for the environment and improve
quality of life.
1
I. Introduction
Smart growth development follows patterns that have defined cities and towns for generations—
commercial Main Streets within walking distance of homes; central business districts where offices,
services, and stores cluster; and close-in residential neighborhoods on traditional street grids. Smart
growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense of place
(see Exhibit 1). Such projects can occur almost anywhere, but this paper focuses on smart growth
development on infill sites (referred to here simply as “infill development”), which:
•Occurs in already built-up areas with existing transportation and utility infrastructure.
•Often repurposes or replaces existing buildings, parking lots, or other impervious areas.
•Adds homes and/or businesses near the center of cities and towns.
Infill development can reduce development
pressure on outlying areas, helping to
protect lands that serve important
ecological functions. When it occurs near
existing transit infrastructure, employment
centers, and other destinations, it can also
help reduce the amount that people drive,
improving air quality and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The
redevelopment of formerly economically
viable but now under-used or abandoned
sites, and those potentially contaminated
with hazardous waste, is especially
important. Such projects can improve the
environment while providing multiple
community benefits.
Developers of all sizes—from independent,
small-scale firms to large, publicly traded
companies—are building infill projects
throughout the country that achieve these
environmental benefits, and they are doing
so profitably. Developers have sought infill projects as an opportunity to participate in flourishing
downtown markets.
For example, Denver has seen downtown development grow considerably in recent years. The number
of people living in downtown neighborhoods grew by 86 percent from 2000 to 2012, while the number
of households in downtown neighborhoods grew by 110 percent. Between 2010 and 2011 alone, the
Exhibit 1: Smart Growth Principles In 1996, the Smart Growth Network, made up of organizations representing diverse interests including real estate, environmental, development, affordable housing, government, and others, developed 10 smart growth principles based on experiences of communities around the country:
•Mix land uses.
•Take advantage of compact building design.
•Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
•Create walkable neighborhoods.
•Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strongsense of place.
•Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
•Strengthen and direct development towards existingcommunities.
•Provide a variety of transportation choices.
•Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective.
•Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. Source: Smart Growth Network. “Why Smart Growth?” www.smartgrowth.org/why.php. Accessed September 28, 2012.
Introduction
2
number of private-sector employees downtown grew by 4 percent.1 The growth in demand for new
residential and office development in the urban core has pushed developers to better understand how
these new urbanites want to live, work, and play.
Zocalo Community Development, a Denver-based infill residential developer, has built multiple
apartment buildings in downtown Denver. Early on, Zocalo learned that renters in its downtown
apartments want a sense of authenticity and value connections between each other and their
surrounding neighborhood. According to David Zucker, principal and director of development, Zocalo
staff are “tinkerers, and are getting better and better at being able to identify the factors that allow
residents to feel that connection—not connection to apartment 603, but to the community they live
in.”2 They have done this by facilitating connections both internally in their apartment communities and
externally with the neighborhood. They host events at local bars and restaurants to create a link to the
community. By offering features and amenities attractive to their target market, Zocolo is able to earn
rents 15 percent above the average market rent per square foot in the downtown area.
Denver is just one of many cities where downtown development is thriving. Infill is a significant and
growing share of residential construction in many metropolitan regions. Overall, infill comprises an
estimated 21 percent of new home construction among the 209 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, and
nearly three out of four large metropolitan regions saw an increased share of infill housing development
in 2005-2009 compared to 2000-2004.3 However, even in markets where infill development is less
common, developers can find opportunities to profit. This paper is intended to help developers who are
considering infill development and want to understand more about the risks and rewards.4 First, it
examines the real and perceived challenges of infill development and how developers are able to
overcome them. It then outlines the demographic trends that are driving increasing demand for infill
development. Finally, it summarizes research showing how reduced infrastructure costs and higher
property values can allow infill developers to earn a good return on their investment while protecting
the environment, strengthening the economy, and improving quality of life in the community.
1 Downtown Denver Partnership. State of Downtown Denver. 2012. http://www.downtowndenver.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/State-of-Downtown-Denver-September-2012.pdf.
2 Personal communication with David Zucker, Principal, Director of Development, Zocalo Community Development on
December 12, 2012.
3 EPA. Residential Construction Trends in America’s Metropolitan Regions. 2012.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/construction_trends.htm.
4 EPA has publications on the economic advantages of smart growth for large-scale developers and production builders of
master-planned communities. See EPA. Smart Growth: The Business Opportunity for Developers and Production Builders. 2008-
2009. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sg_business.htm and EPA. Market Acceptance of Smart Growth. 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/market_acceptance.htm.
3
II.Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
Opportunities for infill development exist in cities and towns throughout the country. Nevertheless, infill
development can present challenges, including:
•Land assembly difficulty due to smaller parcels with fragmented ownership.
•Potential for existing environmental contamination.
•Higher capital costs.
•More limited financing options.
•A longer regulatory approval process.
These barriers, real or perceived, can discourage some developers, particularly those without infill
experience. This section discusses the real and perceived obstacles to infill development and how
these barriers are often surmountable and are beginning to diminish as infill development becomes
more prevalent.
A. Land Assembly
One of the first steps—and frequently one of the most challenging aspects—of infill development is
land assembly.5 Developers in infill areas frequently need or want to assemble multiple parcels to
create a larger developable site, but ownership is often more fragmented in cities than in
undeveloped areas. Land assembly is often essential in infill locations, and the costs can be high
compared to undeveloped sites. Real estate is generally more expensive in infill locations than in
outlying areas because land is relatively scarce, sites are closer to services and infrastructure, and
zoning and the market often support uses that have higher revenue potential.6 However, the
assembly process itself involves additional costs because:
•Multiple owners require additional time for negotiations and higher transaction costs.
•The owner of a parcel that is critical to the success of a project has enormous advantage and can
often command a premium from buyers.7
•Properties can have lengthy chains of title that must be established before ownership can be
transferred.8
Developers can mitigate the challenges of land assembly for infill sites by building on smaller footprints.
Even smaller sites can be redeveloped into profitable uses if assembling neighboring parcels proves
infeasible. One architect commenting on the trend toward smaller infill development projects said, “It
5 Nelson, Arthur, and Robert Lang. “The Next 100 Million.” Planning. 73.1 (2007): 4-6..
6 McConnell, Virginia, and Keith Wiley. Infill Development: Perspectives and Evidence from Economics and Planning. Resources
for the Future. 2010. http://www.rff.org/News/Features/Pages/Infill-Development-Perspectives-and-Evidence-from-
Economics-and-Planning.aspx.
7 Brooks, Leah, and Byron Lutz. Do We Need Eminent Domain? An Empirical Investigation of Urban Land Assembly. University of
Toronto working paper. 2011.
8 Urban Land Institute. Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact. 2001.
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
4
almost seems like any infill site is a
good site if it’s in a good area, no
matter how small or oddly shaped.”9
In addition, many large sites are
available for developers willing to
address possible environmental
contamination (see Section B) or to
redevelop commercial or institutional
buildings.10 Many older suburban
areas with good transit access are also
good candidates for infill development
because as the region has grown
around them, they are now in a
relatively central location that could
support more housing and greater
economic activity.
Many cities realize the challenges of
land assembly in infill areas and are
developing innovative programs to address the issue while meeting other community needs like
neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing. Some cities have programs to help developers
interested in creating affordable housing find infill properties already assembled for development. For
example, the Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority helps to acquire, assemble, and prepare
properties for development of affordable housing as part of a comprehensive plan for neighborhood
revitalization.11 In the Cleveland area, the Cuyahoga Land Bank uses revenue from penalties and interest
charged to delinquent property taxpayers to acquire contiguous properties and maintain them until
redevelopment on the site can occur.12
B. Environmental Contamination
Brownfields, sites with real or perceived environmental contamination, can present another barrier to
infill development. Many types of uses, including gas stations, dry cleaners, and industrial facilities, can
leave behind environmental contaminants after operations end. Environmental contamination might
require mitigation before it would be safe for new occupants. Even the perception or possibility of
contamination can discourage some developers from acquiring these properties because of unknown
costs and additional time that could be required for cleanup.
9 Bady, Susan. “5 Trends in Infill Housing.” Professional Builder. February 20, 2011. http://www.housingzone.com/design/5-
trends-infill-housing.
10 Urban Land Institute 2001, op. cit.
11 Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority. “Land Banks.” http://www.fccalandbank.org/banking.htm. Accessed July
30, 2013.
12 Cuyahoga Land Bank. “Strategic Land Assembly.” http://cuyahogalandbank.org/assembly.php. Accessed July 30, 2013.
Exhibit 2. Small-lot Infill in Washington, D.C. In the 14th Street Historic District a developer purchased a one-story building that was not designated as historic. He replaced it with a three-story, mixed-use building, now housing an art gallery on the first floor. Sandwiched between historic structures, the project had limited space for construction staging and had to fit on a small footprint. Photo source: EPA
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
5
However, the risks of contamination are often factored into sale prices, so developers willing to work on
brownfields can find opportunities to acquire bargain properties. Studies have shown that potential
contamination and associated liability for cleanup lowers property values.13 However, the property
value discount can be much greater than the costs of remediation. A study in Cedar Falls, Iowa, found
that the cumulative discount for all homes potentially affected by a leaking underground storage tank
from a former gas station is 24 to 48 times the cost of remediation (depending on whether the tank is
classified as having a low or high risk of leaking).14 Even factoring in cleanup costs, brownfield sites offer
developers the chance to earn a profit. According to a survey of developers who had redeveloped
contaminated property, 56 percent said that their rate of return for brownfield projects was higher than
their average rate of return, while 25 percent indicated that their brownfield projects were
exceptionally profitable.15
The risks involved with brownfields cleanup might cause some potential developers to hesitate.
However, insurance products are available to protect developers from liability and limit cleanup costs.
Pollution liability insurance covers claims from third parties of property damage or personal injury,
property value declines due to the discovery of pollution, business interruption, and legal expenses
involved in defending the insured against claims. Cost-cap insurance limits the amount that developers
would have to pay for cleanup by covering costs that exceed those in a remediation plan.16 These types
of insurance can provide developers greater certainty about the costs associated with potential
contamination when making investment decisions.17 In addition, federal, state, and local governments
provide tools and assistance for brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment, including
technical assistance, low-interest loans, liability protection, tax incentives, and streamlined government
oversight of cleanup.18 Many developers have used such assistance to transform former brownfields
into projects that make a profit and transform neighborhood liabilities into assets, benefiting the
community and the environment as well.
In Baltimore, developers remediated and redeveloped a 4.6-acre brownfield site that formerly housed a
coal yard and more recently was used as a parking lot (Exhibit 3). In its place, they constructed a LEED®-
certified mixed-use development with 275 apartments and 14,000 square feet of retail. The project was
a success for both the developer and the neighborhood. The apartments were fully leased within 11
months of construction, and two years after the project’s 2010 opening, $182 million in new
13 Howland, Marie. “Is Contamination the Barrier to Inner-City Industrial Revitalization?” In Recycling the City: The Use and
Reuse of Urban Land, by Rosalind Greenstein and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 89-109. 2004.
14 Isakson, Hans, and Mark Ecker. “The Effect of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on the Values of Nearby Homes.”
University of Northern Iowa. 2010. http://faculty.cns.uni.edu/~ecker/research.html.
15 Wernstedt, Kris, Peter B. Meyer, and Kristen R. Yount. "Insuring Redevelopment at Contaminated Urban Properties." Public
Works Management & Policy 8.2 (2003): 85-98.
16 Ibid.
17 Rice, Emily. Reuse: Creating Community-Based Brownfields Redevelopment Strategies. American Planning Association. 2010.
http://www.planning.org/research/brownfields.
18 For information about funding sources for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, and environmental job training,
see: EPA. “Brownfields and Land Revitalization Grants & Funding.” http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/grant_info/index.htm.
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
6
development had begun in the vicinity in an area that had seen little new construction for decades
prior.19
C. Capital Costs
Infill development can require a higher upfront capital investment that can be a barrier for developers.
Potentially higher costs are associated with:
•Demolition. Many infill projects require demolition of existing structures before new
construction can occur.
•Design. Infill development is built to be seen from the sidewalk, at a closer range and slower
pace, so buyers and tenants often expect more expensive design, façades, and finishes than are
used in projects set back from the road in areas with little pedestrian activity.20
•Construction. Infill development, frequently consisting of multistory buildings on smaller lots, is
more expensive to construct than the one- or two-story wood-frame construction more typical
of development in outlying areas. Buildings over four stories tall require steel or reinforced
concrete construction systems, which are significantly more expensive than wood framing.21
19 Bady, Susan. “The Upside of Infill Development.” The Wall. B&A Architecture. November 11, 2012.
http://baarchitecture.com/wall/?p=23.
20 Leinberger, Christopher, and Sarah Kavage. Barriers to Developing Walkable Urbanism and Possible Solutions. The Brookings
Institution. 2007. http://chrisleinberger.com/docs/By_CL/Brookings_Barriers_05302007.pdf.
21 Leinberger and Kavage 2007, op. cit.
Exhibit 3. The Fitzgerald in Baltimore. This $77 million infill project in midtown Baltimore was constructed under a public-private partnership that benefits the developer as well as the University of Baltimore and the city itself. The project was financially successful, catalyzed development in an area that had suffered from disinvestment, and provided much-needed building space for the university. Photo source: The Bozzuto Group
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
7
These higher upfront costs mean that infill projects often have lower internal rates of return 22 than
other types of development in the first years after construction. However, infill housing that is
integrated into the existing urban fabric can command a price premium over development that involves
creating a large number of units on contiguous parcels with newly designed roads, parking, and open
space.23 In addition, infill projects typically achieve higher returns over longer investment periods
compared to projects in previously undeveloped areas because of higher rent and sale prices.24
Developers can thus recoup their higher upfront investment by holding on to properties for a longer
time before selling. In infill neighborhoods, additional development—which is often spurred by even a
single successful project—contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and adds amenities that make
the area more appealing to live and work. Given the right conditions, a single catalytic project can lead
to a neighborhood revitalization that raises the value of all properties in the area.
Many municipalities are helping infill developers pay for infrastructure costs, recognizing that doing so
can help catalyze redevelopment. Costs for necessary infrastructure upgrades, such as an expanded
water main to support new residential development, might otherwise fall entirely on the first
redevelopment project in an area, creating a disincentive for any developer to act first. For example, in
California, with the consent of two-thirds of the district’s voters, a municipality can establish a
community facilities district in which a special tax on all properties in the district can be used to finance
infrastructure improvements. Developers can then keep the cost of infrastructure improvements off
their balance sheet so it does not interfere with their ability to finance construction or acquire long-term
debt for the project. In 1991, 1992, and 2008, Contra Costa County, California, established three
separate community facilities districts to finance infrastructure around the Pleasant Hills Bay Area Rapid
Transit Station, helping to launch the area’s transformation into the walkable community it is today.25
D. Financing
Financing challenges are tied to the level of risk associated with infill projects. Investors can perceive
mixed-use projects to be inherently risky primarily because of their complexity. This complexity means
each project is unique, developers must be more skilled, and predicting demand is more challenging.26
In addition, phasing and financing need to match market cycles, but the markets for residential,
commercial, and retail do not necessarily move together. Investors frequently finance one use at a time,
and mixed-use projects therefore often require multiple financing sources.27
22 The internal rate of return is the interest rate at which the net present value of costs equals the net present value of
revenues. Investors require a higher rate of return for projects that carry higher levels of risk.
23 Ryan, Brent D., and Rachel Weber. "Valuing New Development in Distressed Urban Neighborhoods: Does Design Matter?"
Journal of the American Planning Association 73.1 (2007): 100-111.
24 Leinberger, Christopher. Back to the Future: The Need for Patient Equity in Real Estate Development Finance. The Brookings
Institution. 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2007/01/01cities-leinberger.
25 Schildt, Chris. Strategies for Fiscally Sustainable Infill Housing. University of California, Berkeley, Center for Community
Innovation. 2011. http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/reports/Fiscally-Sustainable-Infill.pdf.
26 Gyourko, Joseph and Witold Rybczynski. “Financing New Urbanism Projects: Obstacles and Solutions.” Housing Policy Debate.
11.3 (2000): 733-750.
27 Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000, op. cit.
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
8
Another challenge of financing infill development is that financial models used by banks can act as a
barrier to securing capital investment. Most models assume that higher-income communities can better
support new development. Infill development in cities and older suburbs that have experienced neglect
and disinvestment can thus be more difficult to finance.28 Such areas are often more likely to have
brownfield sites, which can face additional financing challenges. For brownfield sites, lenders can have
higher underwriting costs associated with evaluating site conditions,29 require higher rates of return,30
require developers to contribute more equity,31 and be reluctant to accept the underlying real estate as
collateral.32 However, brownfield sites are also eligible for a host of local, state, and federal assistance
programs, which can close the financing gap and make redevelopment a financially viable proposition.
Despite these challenges, many developers have successfully financed infill projects on brownfields and
other sites. Although investors might perceive the risk of infill development to be high, many developers
with experience working on infill projects believe that no real risk premium exists relative to comparable
mixed-use projects in undeveloped areas.33 As more developers and lenders become involved with infill
projects, perceptions are likely to better match reality. To that end, several specialized firms have
opened to serve developers that need help with financing for mixed-use developments.34
For new infill developers in particular, smaller projects valued at less than $10 million can present
opportunities to enter the infill market because there is much less competition from developers funded
by institutional investors.35 However, even institutional investors are entering the infill market and
making it easier for developers to finance projects. For example, in late 2012, one financial services firm
created a new division to provide acquisition, development, and construction loans for infill projects
valued between $3 million and $35 million that are located near employment centers.36 Many real
estate investment funds and trusts are also focusing on infill markets for investment of their large pools
of capital.37
E. Regulatory Approval Process
Infill development can be challenging in cities with regulations that separate land uses and have
requirements for parking and street width that were developed for spread-out suburban areas rather
28 Burchell, Robert and David Listokin. Linking Vision with Capital: Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth.
Research Institute for Housing America. 2001.
http://www.housingamerica.org/Publications/LinkingVisionWithCapital:ChallengesandOpportunitiesinFinancingSmartGrowth.htm. 29 Bartsch, Charles. "Financing Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment." Government Finance Review 18.1 (2002): 26-31.
30 Ibid.
31 Simons, Robert A. and Donald T. Iannone. “Brownfields Supply and Demand.” Urban Land. 56.6 (1997): 36-38.
32 Ibid.
33 Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000, op. cit.
34 Minadeo, Dominic F. Price Premiums and Mixed-Use Development. NAIOP Research Foundation. 2009.
http://www.naiop.org/en/Research/Our-Research/Reports/Mixed-Use-Price-Premiums.aspx.
35 Kessler, Kristina. “Small & Smart.” Urban Land. February 2011. http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/Jan/KesslerSmall.
36 Caulfield, John. “A New Capital Source for Infill Projects Breaks onto the West Coast Scene.” Builder Magazine. September 20,
2012. http://www.builderonline.com/lenders/a-new-capital-source-for-infill-projects-breaks-onto-the-west-coast-scene.aspx.
37 Stoler, Michael. “REITs Pouring Investment Into Dense Urban Corners.” The New York Sun. May 31, 2007.
http://www.nysun.com/real-estate/reits-pouring-investment-into-dense-urban-corners/55560/.
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
9
than city and town neighborhoods. Developers must get approval to deviate from zoning codes, a
process that can be lengthy and add uncertainty and cost to the development process.
However, while regulatory constraints once were a major impediment, many cities are changing their
policies to better attract and accommodate infill development. For example, many cities have
designated particular areas for higher-density, mixed-use development,38 and some have adopted form-
based codes,39 which allow mixed-use development, in place of conventional zoning, which mandates
the separation of land uses. In some cities, transportation policy encourages “complete streets,” street
design that accommodates all users, helping to create walkable, bikeable communities where infill
development can be most successful.40 Even developers working in areas that have not adapted their
zoning and approval processes to support mixed-use and walkable infill development can usually find
examples of successful projects in these places that can help generate community support that will
ultimately ease the regulatory process.
Denver is one city that has gradually
modified its regulatory environment to
encourage infill. Many of the challenges
facing smart growth development across
the country do not exist anymore in
Denver—the city rewrote its zoning codes to
enable mixed-use neighborhoods, local
developers have the technical and
managerial skills to execute complex
projects, local banks have a better
understanding of the product mix and
potential returns, and retailers have
adapted their formats to better fit the form-
based code requirements.41 Exhibit 4
describes one of the first projects spurred by
these kinds of changes.
Other cities have undergone similar
transformations. In some cases, one new
mixed-use project can set precedents that
permanently alter transportation agency
38 Minadeo 2009, op. cit.
39 Form-based codes use “physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code.” They “address
the relationship between building façades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and
the scale and types of streets and blocks.” Source: Form-Based Codes Institute. “What Are Form-Based Codes?”
http://www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes. Accessed October 2, 2012.
40 National Complete Streets Coalition. “Policy Atlas.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/changing-
policy/complete-streets-atlas. Accessed August 1, 2013.
41 Stern, Julie. “Lowry.” ULI Development Case Studies. Urban Land Institute. 2006.
Exhibit 4. Regulatory Structure Case Study Lowry, one of Denver’s first completed mixed-use, walkable planned communities, opened in 1998. The 1,866-acre site was decommissioned as an Air Force base in 1994 and was redeveloped to include over 4,500 homes, 1.8 million square feet of office space, 130,000 square feet of retail space, and over 800 acres of parks and open space. Throughout the 1990s, as the project was being planned and developed, the Lowry Redevelopment Authority encountered multiple regulatory challenges: “The underlying zoning for the base property was open space, so most of the property had to be rezoned and replatted. This resulted in complicated discussions with Denver’s public works, fire, and other departments over street and alley widths and other infrastructure requirements.” Hundreds of public meetings were held. Considerable public outreach was needed because the lack of regulatory clarity for the developers created uncertainty among residents about how the site could and would be developed. Lowry paved the way for future mixed-use projects in Denver. At least 10 large, mixed-use communities have been built in the Denver area since Lowry, all of which benefitted from the regulatory reforms spurred by the projects that proceeded. Source: Stern, Julie. “Lowry.” ULI Development Case Studies. Urban Land Institute. 2006.
Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development
10
requirements, zoning policy, or other regulatory barriers that had stood in the way of infill development.
In Los Angeles, the city enacted a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance, which allows the construction of
multiple single-family homes on just one lot zoned for multifamily use. Local developers have used the
ordinance to build innovative and
distinctive new communities that meet the
needs and the budgets of first-time
homebuyers. Financing is generally easier
for both developers and buyers because
each unit comes with a plot of land.42 The
Maltman Bungalows, originally built in the
1920s, are one of the best examples of
detached bungalow courts from that era
remaining in Los Angeles (Exhibit 5). If not
for the ordinance, the buildings probably
would have been torn down. The developer
instead transformed the 17 rental units into
single-family homes for purchase, creating
the city's first small-lot subdivision project
to come to market.43 Small-lot projects in
Los Angeles have been selling well, and
developers expect to break ground on 250
additional units by the end of 2014.44
In 2010, San Antonio, Texas, adopted an Inner-City Reinvestment/Infill Policy that promotes growth and
development in targeted infill areas. Among the incentives provided to developers is the establishment
of a single point of contact in the city government for each new development project who can help
facilitate the permitting process, property tax abatements, and city fee waivers.45 As of 2013, the city
had provided almost $35 million in incentives, and almost 2,500 housing units had been created through
the program.
Communities are working to remove barriers to infill development and making it easier for more
developers to enter the market. Communities are driven to make these changes by many factors,
including environmental sustainability, fiscal prudence, and changing demographics and market
preferences. These trends are also driving developers to pursue more infill opportunities to better meet
demand, as discussed in Section III.
42 Khouri, Andrew. “In Urban L.A., Developers are Building Trendy Homes on Tiny Lots.” Los Angeles Times. July 13, 2013.
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-small-lot-homes-20130714,0,563473.story.
43 Hawthorne, Christopher. “Fledgling L.A. Ordinance Revives an Old Idea: The Small House in the City.” Los Angeles Times. June
5, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-hm-small5-2008jun05,0,5403750.story.
44 Khouri 2013, op. cit.
45 City of San Antonio. Inner-City Reinvestment/Infill Policy. 2010.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/planning/commReinvestment/ICRIP.aspx.
Exhibit 5. The Maltman Bungalows in Los Angeles. The redevelopers of the 1920s-era buildings recognized their historic value and the opportunity to fill a need for small-scale, detached, single-family homes in the city. Photo source: Civic Enterprise Development
III.Increasing Demand for Infill Development
Demographic, social, and economic trends shape the way people live and, by extension, their demand
for real estate. Several trends suggest a sustained increase in demand for infill development and an
opportunity for developers in many markets. This section reviews these long-term shifts and their
potential impacts on residential and office development.
A. Residential Development
Household preferences are changing. In 2004, 13 percent of respondents to a national survey indicated
that they would like to live in a city.46 When the same survey was repeated in 2011, that figure had
increased to 19 percent.47 A different 2011 survey of people who recently shopped for or bought a new
home found that almost half wanted to live closer to work and a downtown area and would accept a
smaller yard in exchange for parks and other public amenities, while two-thirds wanted a community with
sidewalks that led to public spaces like parks and cafes.48 Consumer preferences for the amenities that
infill locations offer are likely to grow as changing demographics affect the housing market. In the next 20
years, the needs and preferences of aging baby boomers, new households, and one-person households
will drive real estate market trends—and infill locations are likely to attract many of these people.49
Baby Boomers’ Needs Are Changing
The first wave of baby boomers reached age 65 in 2011.50 This generation makes up more than one-
quarter of the U.S. population and will continue to shape both society and real estate demand in the
coming decades. Baby boomers are the first suburban generation, and many desire to age in place in the
suburban communities where they currently live.51 However, many of these communities were built for
young families and no longer meet the needs of older people whose children are grown and who cannot
or choose not to drive or maintain a large home with a yard.
Market demand is expected to grow for both rental and for-purchase homes that better match the
needs of empty-nesters and retirees. The president of the American Seniors Housing Association said of
people between the ages of 55 and 75, “They want to stay connected to the community. They want to
volunteer, and they definitely find urban settings to be appealing.”52 An analysis of 50 large cities
11
46 Belden Russonello & Stewart. “2004 National Community Preference Survey.” Smart Growth America and National
Association of Realtors. October 2004. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/NAR-SGASurvey.pdf.
46 Belden Russonello & Stewart. “The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans are Looking for When Deciding
Where to Live.” National Association of Realtors. March 2011. http://www.realtor.org/reports/2011-community-preference-
survey.
48 Warrick, Brooke. “Builder Home Buyer Study 2011.” Builder Magazine. 2011.
http://www.builderonline.com/Images/Builder2011HomeBuyerStudy_tcm10-882121.pdf.
49 Doherty, Patrick C. and Christopher B. Leinberger. “The Next Real Estate Boom.” Washington Monthly. November/December
2010. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1011.doherty-leinberger.html.
50 The U.S. Census Bureau classifies the 76 million people born in the United States between 1946 and 1964 as the baby boom
generation.
51 Berube, Alan et al. State of Metropolitan America: On the Front Lines of Demographic Transformation. The Brookings
Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. 2010. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/05/09-metro-america.
52 Leiserowitz, Nila R. and Michael Hanley. “The City is the New Senior Center.” Fast Company. July 10, 2013.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682539/the-city-is-the-new-senior-center.
Increasing Demand for Infill Development
12
showed that between 2000 and 2010, the baby boomer population in areas 40 to 80 miles from these
cities declined by more than 1 million, while it increased by a similar number in areas within 5 miles of a
city center.53,54 New infill projects for seniors are being built across the country for all segments of the
market—from Los Angeles apartments for low-income seniors seeking to remain in their neighborhood
as rents rise to luxury high-rises in Chicago for seniors who want to be close to the city’s cultural
assets.55
Millennials Are Forming New Households
With the turn of the century, the first millennials entered their twenties (Exhibit 6), and many sought
their own home for the first time. As of 2012, this generation comprises the largest segment of the
rental housing market.56 With over 80 million people born between 1978 and 1995, this age group is
larger than the baby boom generation. It will continue to grow with new immigrants because most
arrive as young adults, and it will eventually become the largest buying and renting cohort.57
Consumer research indicates that nearly two-thirds of millennials want to live in a walkable
community.58 Data confirm
that younger people are
biking, walking, and taking
public transit more often
than in past years, even
those who are relatively
well off financially.59 At the
same time, younger people
are driving less. The
average annual number of
vehicle miles traveled has
declined across all age
groups from 2001 to 2009,
and the most pronounced
53 Keates, Nancy. “Hip, Urban, Middle-Aged.” August 13, 2013. The Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324136204578644080452044960.html#printMode.
54 Bahrampour, Tara. “With the Kids Gone, Aging Baby Boomers Opt for City Life.” August 5, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-kids-gone-aging-baby-boomers-opt-for-city-life/2013/08/05/1a21c1b2-fba7-11e2-
a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html.
55 Leiserowitz 2013, op. cit.
56 According to American Community Survey 2012 data, 36% of renters in the United States are between the ages of 15 to 34
years old, which closely correlates to the Millennial generation. No other market segment represents as large of a share of the
rental market. Renters ages 35 to 44 represent 21% of total renters, renters ages 45 to 64 represent 30% of total renters, and
renters ages 65 to 84 represent 10% of total renters; the remainder of the renters are over 85 years old.
57 Lachman, Leanne and Deborah L. Brett. Generation Y: America’s New Housing Wave. Urban Land Institute. 2011.
http://www.prea.org/research/20110510-GenY-Report_Final.pdf.
58 Lachman and Brett 2011, op. cit.
59 Davis, Benjamin, Tony Dutzik, and Phineas Baxandall. Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving
Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy. Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG Education Fund. 2012.
http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/transportation-and-new-generation.
Exhibit 6. Population Turning 22, United States, 2000-2017. The year 2012 marks the peak year of millennials entering the real estate market, with approximately 4.5 million people turning 22, the age by which most young adults have entered the full-time workforce and begin looking for new homes. Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Increasing Demand for Infill Development
13
decline (23 percent) was among 16- to 34-year-olds.60 These millennial preferences and habits will help
drive demand in the coming decades for infill development, especially if it is transit oriented.
The Number of Single-Person Households Grows
Single-person households are the nation’s second most common household type, accounting for 27
percent of all households in 2010, up from 8 percent in 1940,61 and they account for about 35 percent of
consumer spending in the United States.62 In cities such as Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, the
percentage of single-person households is as high as 44 percent.63 People aged 65 and older are the
largest share of single-person households (almost 45 percent), but more than 15 percent of all age
groups live alone.64
Single people tend to prefer new homes with modern kitchens and baths when they buy (61 percent
versus 51 percent of couples), and are more likely to consider a townhome (29 percent versus 12 percent
of couples with children).65 Many people living alone are attracted to places with a sense of community
among neighbors, that are close to city centers, and that allow walking to work, restaurants, and other
destinations.66 New infill construction can offer single people the location and amenities they seek.
B. Office Development
As more people choose to live in infill neighborhoods, employers are following, and vice versa. Demand
for infill locations among employers seeking office space is expected to increase as cities provide more
transportation options and continue adding amenities to downtown while improving schools and
housing options.67
The move of Class A 68 tenants from suburban office parks to central neighborhoods is playing out across
the country in all industries and is driving up the values of downtown office markets nationally. A 2012
study of Class A office markets in central business districts of 26 cities found that demand in the central
business district is growing at a faster rate than the overall Class A market.69 In Chicago, office vacancy
60 Ibid.
61 Lofquist, Daphne, Terry Lugaila, Martin O’Connell, and Sarah Feliz. “Households and Families: 2010.” 2010 Census Briefs. U.S.
Census Bureau. 2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf.
62 Allyn, Bobby. “More Singles Living Alone and Loving it, Despite the Economy.” USA Today. May 2, 2012.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/living-alone/54585114/1.
63 Wile, Rob. “This Southern City has the Most Single-Person Households in America.” Business Insider. April 26, 2012.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-26/markets/31407686_1_new-era-cities-households.
64 U.S. Census Bureau. “Percentage Single-Person Households by Age of Householder: 2010.” Current Population Survey, Annual
Social and Economic Supplements. 2010. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cah_slides_p7.pdf.
65 Thompson, Boyce. “Survey Illuminates Preference of Single Buyers of New Homes.” Builder Magazine. November 22, 2010.
http://www.builderonline.com/demographics/survey-illuminates-single-buyer-preferences.aspx.
66 Ibid.
67 Livingston, George and Christie Alexander. “Trends Affecting Business Parks Today.” Site Selection. November 2010.
http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2010/nov/SAS-Top-Locations.cfm.
68 The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International defines Class A office space as the “most prestigious
buildings competing for premier office users with rents above average for the area. Buildings have high quality standard
finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence.” Source: Boma International.
“Building Class Definitions.” http://www.boma.org/research/Pages/building-class-definitions.aspx. Accessed August 21, 2013.
69 Jones Lang LaSalle. North America Skyline Review. 2012. http://www.joneslanglasalle.eu/EMEA/EN-
GB/Pages/ResearchDetails.aspx?ItemID=7960.
Increasing Demand for Infill Development
14
rates in July 2012 were 15 percent downtown compared to 24 percent in the suburbs.70 Tenant demand
for infill locations drove investors and developers to core infill markets as the economy started
improving after the low point of 2007-2008, and infill remains a top choice for investors, even as
markets outside of downtown areas start to improve as well.71
Many corporations are moving to infill locations in part because they recognize the competitive
advantages of being closer to the central city where people and businesses are most concentrated.72
Examples of companies choosing to move from suburban office parks to more walkable downtown sites
are numerous. Sears Holding Corporation moved its headquarters 20 years ago from the downtown
Chicago tower bearing its name to a suburb 30 miles northwest of the city. In 2008, the company moved
its e-commerce division back to downtown and now has over 500 employees inside Chicago’s Loop.73
Accenture PLC moved its headquarters from Reston Town Center in Virginia to a transit-accessible office
in Arlington, Virginia, much closer to downtown Washington, D.C.74 Technology companies of all sizes
are moving into cities. San Francisco has become a hub for small, young internet companies, including
Trulia, Twitter, Yelp, Zynga, Craigslist, Airbnb, Dropbox, and more.75 When Google opened its New York
office in 2006, it did so in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood. Amazon.com, Inc., purchased its 11-
building South Lake Union headquarters complex in downtown Seattle in 2012.76
Office space developed on infill sites is typically smaller than suburban office space due to site
constraints and smaller land parcels. These smaller office spaces can be better suited to contemporary
office needs, as companies expand hoteling 77 and telecommuting and switch to an open office layout,
allowing companies to lease fewer square feet per employee. Companies that are leading the trend of
reduced space per employee include LivingSocial, which has minimized overhead costs by limiting space
per employee to as little as 80 to 100 square feet.78 Panasonic’s U.S. headquarters is reducing its facility
size by 50 percent without losing any employees, and the U.S. General Services Administration is
reducing the square footage per employee for federal buildings.79
70 Ori, Ryan. “Vacancy Dips in Suburban Offices.” ChicagoRealEstateDaily.com July 9, 2012.
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120709/CRED02/120709877/vacancy-dips-in-suburban-offices.
71 Wolff Sorter, Amy. “Is Infill Tapped Out?” Real Estate Forum. May 2013. http://www.reforum-
digital.com/reforum/201305#pg70.
72 For a discussion of the economic advantages for business of choosing to locate in central business districts, see EPA. Smart
Growth and Economic Success: The Business Case. 2013. http://www.epa.gov/dced/economic_success.htm.
73 Ori, Ryan. “Sears Boosts Office Space on State Street.” Chicago Real Estate Daily. Crain’s Chicago Business. June 27, 2012.
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120627/CRED03/120629823/sears-boosts-office-space-on-state-street.
74 “Accenture Signs Ballston Lease with JBG.” Washington Business Journal. September 13, 2011.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2011/09/13/accenture-signs-ballston-lease-with-jbg.html.
75 “Something in the Air: Why Birds of a Tech Feather Flock Together.” The Economist. October 27, 2012.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21565001-why-birds-tech-feather-flock-together-something-air?fsrc=rss|spr.
76 Pryne, Eric and Amy Martinez. “Amazon Gobbles up Campus for $1 Billion.” The Seattle Times. October 5, 2012.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019355557_amazonvulcan06.html.
77 Hoteling refers to employers providing temporary office space to employees as needed rather than having a dedicated spot
for each individual.
78 Yoder, Steve. “Office Space: The Incredible Shrinking Workplace.” The Fiscal Times. April 11, 2012.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/11/Office-Space-The-Incredible-Shrinking-Workplace.aspx#page1.
79 Medici, Andy. “Individual Work Spaces Shrink 20% or More.” Federal Times. October 2, 2011.
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111002/FACILITIES02/110020307/Individual-work-spaces-shrink-20-more.
15
IV.Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development
The trends described in Section III, including demographic shifts and growing preference for walkable
locations, give developers economic incentives to find solutions to the potential barriers to infill
mentioned in Section II. This section discusses how the benefits of reduced infrastructure costs and
better economic returns associated with infill development are motivating developers to overcome the
barriers that have stymied infill projects in the past.
A. Reduced Infrastructure Costs
Development often requires access to public sewerage and water systems, as well as other utilities,
streets and other transportation facilities, schools, and parks. Developers often must pay for the
infrastructure that will serve their development projects, either directly or in the form of impact fees to
the local government that will provide services.80 Since infill locations already have much of the needed
infrastructure, unless extraordinary capital improvements are required, infrastructure costs can be
substantially lower for infill development relative to a similar project in an undeveloped area. One
analysis of potential cost savings from smart growth development estimated that developers and new
building occupants could save close to $200 billion over 25 years (2000-2025) due to the need for less
infrastructure if the projected 25 million new housing units built during this time followed smart growth
principles.81
Many cities reflect these cost differences in the impact fees they charge new development. The city of
Sacramento, California, analyzed impact fees for identical development projects in infill and
undeveloped areas. Impact fees for residential development on undeveloped sites were twice as high as
for infill, and for commercial development, impact fees on undeveloped sites were 10 times those for
infill.82 Since 2002, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District in California has charged lower
conveyance fees for projects in areas that are at least 70 percent built-out.83 Atlanta has reduced road
impact fees by 50 percent for projects located within half a mile of a transit station, while Loveland,
Colorado, reduced these fees by 25 percent for projects meeting mixed-use criteria.84
Another source of potential cost savings for infill developments located near transit is the reduced need
for parking because residents and employees can get around without a car. One study found that the
number of car trips taken by residents of transit-oriented development projects was almost half that
predicted by the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual, leading to creation of unneeded parking spaces in
80 As of January 21, 2012, the following 28 states have adopted legislation that allows local governments to assess impact fees:
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
81 Burchell and Listokin 2001, op. cit.
82 Parrington, Desmond. “Impact Fees and Smart Growth in Sacramento.” 2007 Presentation at National Impact Fee
Roundtable. October 11, 2007.
http://growthandinfrastructure.org/proceedings/2007_proceedings/parrington_smartgrowth.pdf.
83 Mullen, Clancy. “Impact Fees and Growth Management.” Presented at the National Conference of the American Planning
Association in Chicago, IL, April 14, 2002. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/growth_management.pdf.
84 Ibid.
Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development
16
these projects. In a case study of a
mid-rise project, a 50 percent
reduction in parking would reduce
capital costs for parking by 25 percent
and allow 20 percent more residential
units on the site.85
Many developers can thus recoup
some of the additional capital costs
required for infill development due to
lower infrastructure costs. Also
contributing to developers’ ability to
earn a profit from infill development
in spite of potentially higher capital
costs is the ability to charge higher
rent or sale prices and to retain value
better during economic downturns, as
discussed in the next section.
B. Better Economic Returns
In the economic downturn that began in 2007, infill development retained its value better than
development in outlying areas in many regions. An analysis of home price values for over 30,000 zip
codes across 269 metropolitan regions found that for communities within 75 miles of a central business
district, the greater the distance from that central business district, the greater the decline in home
values during the housing market collapse and the less home values had recovered as of summer
2011.86 An analysis of home prices in the Washington, D.C., region showed similar results.87 Likewise, in
California, those zip codes where home prices declined the least between 2007 and 2010 were on
average 74 percent closer to a major city than those that fared the worst.88
An analysis of home price changes between May 2012 and May 2013 found that urban neighborhoods
outperformed suburban neighborhoods in 16 out of 20 metropolitan areas. Overall, the price per square
foot in neighborhoods dominated by townhouses and multi-unit buildings increased 11.3 percent versus
10.2 percent in neighborhoods dominated by single-family detached houses. The largest differences
85 Arrington, G. B., and Robert Cervero. "TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel." Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies. 2008. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=870956.
86 Sexton, Steven E., JunJie Wu, and David Zilberman. "How High Gas Prices Triggered the Housing Crisis: Theory and Empirical
Evidence." The Selected Works of Steven E. Sexton. 2012. http://works.bepress.com/sexton/29.
87 Benfield, Kaid. “New DC Data Confirm Real Estate Recovery Strongest in Central & Transit-Served Locations.” Switchboard:
National Resources Defense Council Staff Blog. March 26, 2013.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/new_dc_data_confirm_real_estat.html.
88 Sexton, Wu, and Zilberman 2012, op. cit.
Exhibit 7. La Valentina in Sacramento, California. This infill development along a light-rail line transformed a contaminated lot that had sat vacant for 20 years into a mixed-use, affordable housing project. The developer’s long entitlement process for this project prompted the city to initiate an update of its zoning code in 2013. Photo source: Bruce Damonte
Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development
17
were found in Detroit (28.8 percent versus 22 percent), Phoenix (27.2 percent versus 22.1 percent), and
Miami (18.1 percent versus 13.1 percent).89
Office values are showing the same trends. As recovery from the 2007 economic downturn continues,
vacancy rates are starting to fall in cities while staying flat in suburbs. Office values in central business
districts have risen about 65 percent from their 2009 low, whereas suburban office values have stayed
relatively flat after falling more than 42 percent from their peak.90,91 Office space in mixed-use, infill
developments can command rent premiums in a variety of markets. For example, in Nashville,
Tennessee, office space in mixed-use developments earns 5 to 10 percent more per square foot than in
single-use developments.92
Infill sites are usually more walkable than other areas because many older parts of cities were built
when most people moved around by foot, and many destinations are within easy reach. Research has
shown that higher levels of walkability are correlated with better real estate performance for both
commercial and residential properties. One scientifically validated measure of a location’s walkability is
Walk Score®, which measures the number of amenities within walking distance of an address, with
scores ranging from 0 (car dependent) to 100 (most walkable).93,94 An analysis of more than 4,200
properties across the United States found that for office, retail, and apartment properties, higher Walk
Scores are associated with higher property values.95 An office or retail property with a Walk Score of 80
has a market value 54 percent more per square foot than a comparable property with a Walk Score of
20, while an apartment property is worth 6 percent more. A coarse analysis covering 259 cities that
considered city-level Walk Scores and regional information on median household income,
unemployment, and cost of living found that a 10-point increase in Walk Score is associated with a
5 percent increase in housing prices.96
Research within particular regions has replicated these results. For example, a study of six communities
in the Rocky Mountain West that represent the diversity of communities in the region found that before
the economic downturn that began in 2007, home buyers paid 18.5 percent more per square foot to live
in a compact, walkable community. Between 2007 and 2011, as the housing market declined and then
began to recover, compact, walkable communities retained a price premium of 12.5 percent even as
89 Kolko, Jed. “Home Prices Rising Faster in Cities than in the Suburbs – Most of All in Gayborhoods.” trulia trends. June 25,
2013. http://trends.truliablog.com/2013/06/home-prices-rising-faster-in-cities/. The 20 metropolitan areas studied are those
for which there is an S&P/Case-Schiller Home Price Index that tracks changes in the value of residential real estate.
90 Brown, Eliot. “Pain Prolonged in Suburban Office Market.” Wall Street Journal. July 13, 2011.
91 Philipp, Tad, Kevin Fagan, and Nick Levidy. Boston, New York Top Major Metros Over Last 12 Months. Moody’s Investors
Service. 2012.
92 Minadeo 2009, op. cit.
93 Duncan, Dustin T., Jared Aldstadt, John Whalen, Steven J. Melly, and Steven L. Gortmaker. "Validation of Walk Score® for
Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An analysis of Four U.S. Metropolitan areas." International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 8.11 (2011): 4160-4179.
94 Carr, Lucas J., Shira I. Dunsiger, and Bess H. Marcus. "Validation of Walk Score for Estimating Access to Walkable Amenities."
British Journal of Sports Medicine 45.14 (2011): 1144-1148.
95 Pivo, Gary and Jeffrey D. Fischer. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments.” Real Estate Economics.
99.2 (2010): 195-219.
96 Washington, Emily. "Role of Walkability in Driving Home Values." Leadership and Management in Engineering 13.3 (2013):
123-130.
Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development
18
housing prices declined overall.97 A study of 94,000 home sales across the United States found that in 13
of the 15 markets examined, increased walkability was associated with higher home values. On average,
every one-point increase in Walk Score was associated with a $700 to $3,000 higher sales price.98
Similarly, a study of residential land values in Jefferson County, Alabama, found that land values and
sales prices increase with walkability and declining car dependence, and the price premium holds over
time.99
Many infill sites also have good access to transit, which also often increases land values. A study of land
values in Santa Clara County, California, found that retail and office properties within a quarter-mile of a
light-rail station were about 23 percent higher than comparable properties farther away. For retail and
office properties in commercial business districts, the price premium for being within a quarter-mile of a
station was even greater—more than 120 percent.100 Residential properties showed similar results.101
For land zoned for multi-unit buildings, the value of properties within a quarter-mile of a light-rail
station was 45 percent higher than the mean property value in the county and 28 percent higher than
the value of all properties within 4 miles of a station. Proximity to a commuter rail station created price
premiums of around 20 percent for all types of residential properties. Properties with a balance of jobs
and employed residents and a mix of uses also showed price premiums over properties in single-use
neighborhoods.
A similar study in the San Diego region found that overall, both residential and commercial properties
had higher values near rail transit stations.102 For example, the greatest price premiums of 91 percent
were found for commercial properties near downtown stations. However, for certain property types in
certain locations, properties near transit were discounted as much as 10 percent. Condominiums
showed price premiums when near transit in all locations, while single-family housing varied, and
commercial property showed premiums in major retail areas but discounts outside of these locations.
The development context and development type is thus important to consider, but available research
suggests that the hallmark features of many infill sites—walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods close to
transit stations—are ripe for developments that can benefit from and will ultimately enhance these
attributes.
97 Sonoran Institute. Reset: Assessing Future Housing Markets in the Rocky Mountain West. 2013.
http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/component/docman/doc_details/1451-reset-assessing-future-housing-markets-in-the-rocky-
mountain-west-3132013.html?Itemid=3.
98 Cortright, Joe. Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities. CEOs for Cities. 2009.
http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/.
99 Rauterkus, Stephanie Yates, and Norman G. Miller. "Residential land values and walkability." The Journal of Sustainable Real
Estate 3.1 (2011): 23-43.
100 Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Transit's Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial
Land Values." Transportation Research Record. 1805.1 (2002): 8-15.
101 Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets: Experiences in Santa Clara County."
Journal of Public Transportation 5.1 (2002): 1-18.
102 Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County. Report prepared for
National Association of Realtors Urban Land Institute. 2002.
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice039.pdf.
19
V. Conclusion
The real and perceived challenges of infill development are diminishing. Although land assembly can
involve additional costs relative to development on undeveloped land, developers are building on
smaller lots or acquiring large brownfield properties that they can profitably clean up and redevelop,
and cities are developing innovative programs to address the issue. The risks involved in brownfields
redevelopment are often factored into sales prices and can be mitigated with insurance products,
allowing developers to reliably predict their costs. Higher upfront capital costs can be offset by higher
sales and rental prices, and developers willing to hold properties for longer periods can take advantage
of rising property values spurred by successful redevelopment projects. As infill becomes more
prevalent, more lenders are developing products and services to help overcome financing challenges
associated with mixed-use projects. Finally, cities eager to reap the environmental, economic, and social
benefits of infill development are changing regulations and policies to encourage and facilitate it.
Overall, developers are learning how to create profitable projects that meet a growing demand for
housing and offices in walkable neighborhoods near transit, cultural attractions, restaurants, and other
amenities.
Demographic changes on the horizon—more seniors looking for homes that better meet their needs,
more millennials setting up new households, and more singles in all age categories—are likely to drive
demand for infill development. The coming years and decades will create opportunities for developers
able to meet this demand. Lower infrastructure costs and higher rent and sales prices for infill projects
will help make infill projects profitable for developers, supporting neighborhoods that are better for the
environment and improve quality of life.
TO: Members of the Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Local Historic Designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue
DATE: October 5, 2017
At their regular monthly meeting on August 8, 2017, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) concluded a public hearing to consider the designation of the property
located at 411-415 College Avenue as an individual local landmark. Following the public
hearing, the ILPC voted to recommend that Common Council proceed with the designation of
this historic resource. Included in this packet are copies of the resolution adopted by the ILPC
and the nomination form documenting the historic and architectural significance of the Chacona
Block at 411-415 College Avenue.
Based on the information provided in the nomination, the ILPC found that the Chacona Block at
411-415 College Avenue is eligible for local designation based on criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as set
forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code. Per criterion 1, the Chacona Block “possesses
special historical and aesthetic interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural
characteristics of the City of Ithaca” through its close association with the development and
growth of Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking housing in close proximity to Cornell
University, and for its role in the development of Collegetown as an urban neighborhood separate
from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct character. Per criterion 2, the Chacona Block “is
identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s)” through its association with the
Chacona family, the proprietors of a chain of successful confectionery and ice cream shops in
Ithaca and beyond in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, and John N. Chacona,
specifically. Per criterion 3, the Chacona Block “embodies the distinguishing characteristics of
an architectural style” as a highly intact commercial building constructed in the Renaissance-
Revival Style. Per criterion 4, the Chacona Block “is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age.” The building was designed by John M. Wilgus, a locally well-
known architect in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. His pragmatic designs ranged
widely in terms of architectural style and programmatic use, and reflected the functional and
economic needs of his clients. Per criterion 5, the Chacona Block “represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.” Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues and opposite the stone bridge
over Cascadilla Creek, the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue has served as a gateway
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
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 2
building into the Collegetown neighborhood from Cornell University since its construction in 1912
and is a unique example of a historic, stucco-clad commercial building within the City.
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. As noted in the report, the designation of the Chacona
Block at 411-415 College Avenue is supported by the Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual
Design Guidelines (Collegetown Plan) and the City’s comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca. Its
designation does not conflict with any scheduled or anticipated public improvements within area
and is compatible with MU-2 zoning. A copy of the full report is attached. No reply was
received from the Conservation Advisory Council in response to our request (as required by
CEQR §176-3-J) for their comment on this proposal.
The Common Council is now requested to act to designate, veto, or refer the designation back to
the ILPC for modification. A draft resolution is included in this packet for the Committee’s
consideration.
ILPC Meeting – 08/08/17
Resolution – RA-3
RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Chacona Block, 411-415 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 landmarks
and districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing opened on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 for the purpose of considering a
proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca
landmark has been concluded on August 8, 2017, 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 ILPC has also reviewed the revised New York State Building & Structure Inventory
Form dated August 8, 2017, including the Narrative Description of the Property and the
revised Narrative Description of Significance prepared by the Secretary of the Commission,
B. McCracken, based materials provided by Christine O’Malley and Sara Johnson of
Historic Ithaca, Inc., and Mary Raddant Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the proposal is a 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 Chacona Block as an historic resource was introduced in a report
prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009 entitled Collegetown
Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features, and
WHEREAS, 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
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
2
WHEREAS, the New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form, which is being used as the
basis for considering this recommended designation, was prepared as part of the
aforementioned intensive-level survey, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the criteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
1.Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the
cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or 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 8, 2017, 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 Chacona Block and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-1, is
a structure deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as
enumerated below:
Per criterion 1, the Chacona Block possesses special historical and aesthetic
interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of
the City of Ithaca through its close association with the development and growth of
Cornell University, as an example of the 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
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
3
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—a urban-housing
mode that contained kitchen, bathroom and living areas in one private unit.
Built between 1911 and 1912, the Chacona Block was one of the first mixed-
use mercantile-residential buildings to be constructed near the University to
meet this demand. Its three ground-floor commercial spaces housed
businesses that catered to the ever growing student population 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 Chacona Block was a key part of Collegetown’s transformation from an
extension of the downtown housing and services to a vibrant neighborhood
with a distinct identity.” As one of the first mixed-use commercial-style
buildings on College Avenue, the construction of the Chacona Block marked
the beginning of the gradual urbanization of the 400 block of that street, a
process that allowed the street to become the commercial and housing center
of a neighborhood centered on the needs of students.
Per criterion 2, the Chacona Block is identified with historically significant
person(s) or event(s) through its association with the Chacona family, the
proprietors of a chain of successful confectionery and ice cream shops in Ithaca and
beyond in the late nineteenth- and early-twentieth centuries, and John N. Chacona,
specifically.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, John N. Chacona, was an
active and influential member of the Greek-American business community in
Ithaca at the turn of the 20th century. John N. Chacona was born in Sparta,
Greece in 1884 and immigrated to the United States at the age of nine. He
settled in the Ithaca area in 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy
Company on East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona. John P.
Chacona was known as “Big John” and John N. Chacona was known as
“Little John”. The two operated successful confectionary stores together and
independently, not only in Ithaca but also in Buffalo and Syracuse. When
their partnership dissolved, John N. opened several independent
confectionary shops, the first being at 416 Eddy St. He also operated the
Sugar Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona. John
N. commissioned the Chacona block in 1912 and opened another
confectionary shop in the storefront at 415 College Avenue. With its close
proximity to Cornell University, this shop and John N. Chacona, himself,
became important parts of the social lives of Cornell University students
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
4
Per criterion 3, the Chacona Block embodies the distinguishing characteristics
of an architectural style.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the Chacona Block is a
good local example of the commercial form of the Renaissance-Revival Style.
The building’s architecture also represents a community-supported
movement to make the buildings in Collegetown more fire resistant in the
early-20th century. The building was designed to be “fire proof,” and was
constructed of fire-resistant materials, heated with steam, and illuminated
with electric lights to reduce the danger of fire. Furthermore, the building
derives additional significance from its unique architectural features that
reflect the heritage of the family that commissioned it. Positioned between
the windows on fourth story, the lion’s head and Greek cross decorative
plaques denote the Chacona family’s Greek origins.
Per criterion 4, the Chacona Block is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the building’s designer, John
M. Wilgus, was a locally well-known architect in the late-nineteenth and early-
twentieth centuries. He was responsible for the design of several Collegetown-
area mercantile-residential buildings, including the McAllister Block at the
corner of Eddy and Williams Streets (1907), the John J Gainey Block
(demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Rd (1899), and
another Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue (1908). He also designed the
brick commercial building at 114-118 South Cayuga Street and several
downtown residences, many of them located in National Register Historic
Districts. Wilgus’s pragmatic designs ranged widely in terms of architectural
style and programmatic use, and reflected the functional and economic needs
of his clients.
Per criterion 5, The Chacona Block represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues and opposite the stone
bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue
has served as a gateway building into the Collegetown neighborhood from
Cornell University since its construction in 1912. As noted in the Narrative the
Description of Significance, this prominently located property was sought after as
a business location by the early 1900s and its development, including
marketing and sale of the property, design and construction of the building,
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
5
and the appearance and amenities of the completed building, were well
documented in numerous local and regional publications.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue meets criterion
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 defining a Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-4 of the
Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommends the designation of the Chacona Block at
411-415 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca local historic landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION OFFICE USE ONLY
USN:
& HISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY 12188
(518) 237-8643
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
Photos
Provide several clear, original photographs of the property proposed for nomination. Submitted views should represent the property as a
whole. For buildings or structures, this includes exterior and interior views, general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. Color
prints are acceptable for initial submissions.
Please staple one photograph providing a complete view of the structure or property to the front of this sheet. Additional views should be
submitted in a separate envelope or stapled to a continuation sheet.
Maps
Attach a printed or drawn locational map indicating the location of the property in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely
recognized features so that the property can be accurately positioned. Show a north arrow. Include a scale or estimate distances where
possible.
Prepared by: address
Telephone:email Date
(See Reverse)
Chacona Block
411-415 College Avenue
Tompkins Ithaca
Student Agencies, Inc.409 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY 14850
mixed-use mixed-use
John M. Wilgus 1911-12
stucco
see continuation sheet
B. McCracken 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274-6555 bmccracken@cityofithaca.org 8/8/17
Print FormSubmit by Email
Narrative Description of Property:
Chacona Block, 411-415 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The Chacona Block is a 3 ½-story, commercial-style, stucco-clad building constructed in
1911-1912 in the Renaissance Revival Style. Three plaques on the building’s façade depict
lions’ heads and a Greek cross, a reference to builder John N. Chacona’s Greek heritage.
The building occupies a prominent location in the heart of Collegetown at the edge of the
Cornell University campus. It is among the earlier commercial-style buildings constructed
in Collegetown to provide both rental apartments and commercial space.
Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues at a prominent site adjacent to the campus of
Cornell University, this representative of the commercial, Renaissance Revival Style is a mixed-
use building housing commercial space in its three ground-floor storefronts and residential space
in its upper stories. The building anchors the corner of a continuous row of mixed-use,
commercial buildings on the southern side of the College Avenue Bridge. The Chacona Block
and the Larkin Building, located in the same commercial row, were constructed in the early
twentieth century and set the tone for the late-twentieth century buildings that complete the block
today. Neighboring wood-frame buildings were replaced by these newer commercial buildings,
appropriately-scaled and complimentary to the historic Chacona and Larkin buildings as well as
their neighbor across the street, Sheldon Court. The Chacona’s location on a trapezoidal-shaped,
corner lot allows for a large, outdoor gathering space on its north elevation, currently used as an
outdoor dining area for Collegetown Bagels, which occupies the storefront of 415 College
Avenue. This space is important to the neighborhood’s character, providing a gathering space for
the Cornell University and Collegetown community in a neighborhood with little outdoor public
space.
To the north of the Chacona Block, the historic stone arch College Avenue bridge across
Cascadilla Creek connects the Collegtown neighborhood to the Cornell University campus. To
the immediate east is St. Luke Lutheran Church at 109 Oak Avenue, constructed in 1923-24.
Further along Oak Avenue are late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century homes, most
converted for student or fraternity housing, and the Cascadilla School on the corner of Oak and
Summit Avenues. Across College Avenue to the west are Sheldon Court and Cornell’s Schwartz
Center for the Performing Arts, with Cascadilla Hall further west. To the south along the 300
block of College Avenue are more commercial buildings, most of them dating from the late-
twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries; along the 100 and 200 blocks of College Avenue are
formerly single-family homes converted to student apartments, except for the Grand View House
at 209 College Avenue, the last surviving of Collegetown’s great boardinghouses.
The Chacona Block is constructed of hollow clay tile and brick with a steel frame. The
building’s three-bay, four-story principal façade (west) contains three storefronts in the first
story, with a simple cornice dividing the first story from the upper stories of the building. Each
bay of the second and third stories contains a group of three 6/1 windows, with the center
window being slightly wider than the two flanking it. In the fourth story, the center windows of
the north and south bays are replaced with a round lion’s-head plaque. In place of the center
bay’s center window is a round plaque depicting a shield emblazoned with a Greek cross. The
flanking windows on the fourth story are 4/1 and shorter than the windows of the stories below.
The west façade is capped by a wide cornice and stepped parapet. Upper floor windows
throughout the building lack moldings or ornament, with the exception of simple sills clad in the
same pebble-dash stucco as the walls.
The northernmost storefront, designated as 415 College Avenue, consists of a central expanse of
plate glass topped with several fixed sash each containing many small lights in a grid pattern of 9
units in width, 7 in height. This glazing pattern appears to be original to the building, and
continues into the angled, sheltered storefront entrance shared by the entrance to the northern
apartments’ stair hall as well as the entrance to the center storefront, designated as 413 College
Avenue. The ceiling of the sheltered entrance is finished with pressed metal panels, likely
original to the building. Surmounting the plate glass windows of the center storefront is an art-
glass transom window, likely original to the building, partially visible behind a modern sign.
The southernmost storefront, at 411 College Avenue, departs in appearance from the northern
two and was extensively altered sometime after 19751. Where it once had a sheltered entrance
similar to the one shared by 413 and 415, it now has a vaguely Gothic-Revival style appearance,
including windows with pointed-arch mullions, a round-arched entry door, and heavy wood
paneling and moldings.
Brick pilasters mark the north and south corners of the west façade and delineate the 411 and 413
storefronts. In a 1975 photograph, these appear to be stuccoed and/or painted to match the
exterior wall treatment of the upper stories.2
The north façade of the Chacona Block consists of six bays, with single 6/1 windows on the
second and third stories centered over first-story bays of large plate-glass windows each topped
with two transom sash containing 6 lights. The exception to the pattern is in the second bay from
the east, which contains paired 6/1 windows on the second and third stories over a glass
1 New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form photograph, 1975, Historic Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY
2 Ibid.
greenhouse-type structure (added after 19753) within the first story bay which provides a second
entrance to the commercial space. There are no fourth-story windows on the north façade. The
brick wall and pilasters dividing the bays of the first story appears to have been originally
stuccoed to match the upper stories. The wall terminates in a parapet which steps down towards
the rear (east) of the building, disguising a low-slope shed roof. A palimpsest suggests that the
height of the building was increased at some point prior to 1954.4
At the rear (east) façade, a three-story partially-enclosed addition (at one time open porches)
includes a fire escape. At the south, the single-story storefront of 409 College Avenue forms a
continuous streetwall at the ground level. The upper floors of the south façade are similar to the
north façade, except for the elevator shaft of 409 College Avenue which adjoins the Chacona
Block about midway along the south façade, providing elevator access to both 409 and 411-415.
Narrative Description of Significance:
Chacona Block, 411-415 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The Chacona Block is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a local
interpretation of the commercial form of the Renaissance Revival Style.
The Chacona Block is significant for its close association with the growth and development
of Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking to reside in proximity to the
campus, and for its role in the development of Collegetown, particularly College Avenue, as
an urban neighborhood separate from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct
character. Built in 1911-12 as a mixed-use, fireproof, commercial-style building replacing
an earlier wood boardinghouse, the construction of the Chacona Block on a site adjacent to
the campus of Cornell University established it as one of Collegetown’s most prominent
and recognizable buildings. The Chacona Block has additional local significance for its
association with John N. Chacona, the owner of a successful chain of confectionary and ice
cream shops in Ithaca, as well as with the larger Greek business community in Ithaca.
The building’s designer, John M. Wilgus, was locally well-known in the late 19th and early
20th centuries as the architect of several Collegetown-area mercantile-residential buildings,
including the McAllister Block at the corner of Eddy and Williams Streets (1907-08), the
John J. Gainey Block (demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Road
(1899), and another Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue (1908), as well as the Chacona
Block. Wilgus also designed the brick commercial building at 114¬118 S. Cayuga St. and
several downtown residences, many of which are located within National Register districts.
3 Ibid
4 Tompkins County Department of Assessment, Tompkins County Tax Assessment photograph, 1954, Historic
Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY.
Wilgus’s father John B. Wilgus and uncle Henry L. Wilgus were successful merchants who
erected the Wilgus Block at the corner of State and Tioga Streets.
________________________
Along with the rest of Collegetown and much of the present-day city of Ithaca, the Chacona
Block property was part of the extensive holdings amassed by Simeon DeWitt following the
allotment of lands within the Military Tract. The area now called Collegetown was settled
relatively early due to the abundant water power provided by Cascadilla Creek. In 1827 Otis
Eddy, for whom Eddy Street is named, established his cotton mill on the current site of
Cascadilla Hall. Eddy had already constructed a dam in Cascadilla Gorge to direct water to his
mill pond. Called Willow Pond, it endured until the 1890s, crossed by Huestis Street
immediately north of the present-day sites of the Chacona Block and Sheldon Court.
Much of the land on East 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
lot that would become 411-415 College Avenue was identified as Lot #4 of the John and Samuel
Giles estate; the lot that would become 409 College Avenue was Lot #3.5
The shortage of student housing that continues to plague Cornell today began as soon as the
University opened in 1868. At that time, the university provided only two lodging facilities:
Cascadilla Hall and a portion of Morrill Hall. Cascadilla Hall was repurposed building designed
(but never used) as a water-cure sanitarium located on the rim of the gorge across Cascadilla
Creek from the campus. Morrill Hall was the first building designed and constructed for
university use, and included both residential and instructional space. Those who did not lodge on
campus rented rooms in homes downtown and endured multiple daily treks up East Hill before
omnibus service began in 1876.
It appears that the first structure on the site of the Chacona Block was the boardinghouse
constructed for Ellen M. Murphy in 1884 to cater to Cornell University students living off-
campus in proximity to the student-oriented services beginning to flourish at the edge of campus.
The house appears in an undated photograph prior to 1904 as a 2¬story frame gable-and-ell
structure with several projections and additions probably intended to maximize the number of
rentable rooms.6 It was one of four large, wood frame, residential style buildings on the east side
of the block. This prominently located property across from Sheldon Court was sought after as a
5 Deed conveying 413-415 College Avenue to Student Agencies Properties, Inc. from Lynn Breedlove and Gary Gut,
May 19 1977, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, book 557, page 467, Ithaca, NY. Deed conveying 411 College
Avenue to John E. Van Natta from Giles heirs, April 8 1876, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, book 9, page 325,
Ithaca, NY.
6 Carol Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds., Ithaca’s Neighborhoods, (Ithaca, NY: DeWitt
Historical Society of Tompkins County, 1988), 168. The photograph also shows the Otis Eddy Mill Pond, which had
disappeared by the time the publication of the 1904 Sanborn Maps company fire insurance map of Ithaca.
business location by the early 1900s, with a January 9, 1908 Ithaca Daily News article reporting
that Ms. Murphy turned down an offer of $13,000 for the property amid speculation that the east
side of the 400 block of College Avenue would soon be developed into one business block.7
During the planning of the Chacona Block in 1911, it was noted that Mr. Chacona had not yet
decided whether the existing boardinghouse building would be torn down or relocated.8
The heyday of the Collegetown boardinghouses lasted from around 1880 to 1915. During this
time, they provided meals to many who lodged elsewhere – downtown or within fraternity
houses that lacked dining facilities. The advent of on-campus cafeterias sounded the death-knell
for the boardinghouses, already losing business to the newer rooming-houses and apartment
buildings appearing in Collegetown. By 1919 only one of the four early boardinghouses
remained on the 400 block of College Avenue.
John N. Chacona purchased 411 and 413-415 College Avenue from Ellen Murphy on June 30,
1911. The Chacona Block was constructed to reflect the existence of the two parcels, with a
masonry wall dividing the ground floor along the property line. For many years following
Chacona’s ownership, the two parcels were held by different owners.
The plans for the new building were made public August 3, 19119 and newspaper coverage
followed the project until its completion in 1912. The cost of the building was estimated at
$30,000-$40,000. It contained space on the ground floor for three shops, and three six-room flats
on each of the second and third floors, all “strictly up-to-date with all modern conveniences,”
including a vacuum cleaning system, steam heat, and electric light.10 The attic was designated for
storage. The northern two apartments on each floor were accessible from a common, skylit
stairway and hall, while the southern apartments were reached from a separate entrance and stair
hall, lit by windows opening to a narrow light well between the southern and central units.
Masonry, structural steel and carpentry work was contracted to the Ithaca Contracting Company,
plumbing and heating work were done by W. C. Dean, wiring and electrical work by Davis-
Brown Electrical Company, “painters and decorators” were the firm of Vredenburg, Kelly &
Bell, and the windows, plate glass, and builder’s hardware were supplied by Treman, King &
Co.11
The Chacona Block 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 building was designed by the locally prominent architect, John M. Wilgus, who enjoyed a
more than forty-five year career in the field. In contrast to most of his professional
contemporaries such as A. B. Dale, William H. Miller, Clinton Vivian, and the partners of the
firm of Gibb & Waltz, John M. Wilgus was raised in Ithaca, where his family was actively
7 Ithaca Daily News, January 9, 1908, page 5.
8 Ithaca Chronicle and Democrat, August 17, 1911, page 5.
9 Ithaca Weekly Journal, August 3,1911, page 6.
10 Ithaca Chronicle and Democrat, August 17, 1911, page 5. Ithaca Daily Journal, July 13,1912, page 9.
11 Ithaca Daily News, August 16, 1911, page 3.
involved in the business and social life of the city from the mid-19th through the early-20th
centuries. His father John B. and uncle Henry L. Wilgus commissioned the Wilgus Block,
erected in 1867-68 at the southwest corner of State and Tioga Streets, home to the Wilgus Bros.
retail firm and Wilgus Hall (later Wilgus Opera House), a site now occupied by a portion of the
Center Ithaca building. Local newspapers regularly reported on activities and events associated
with Wilgus family members, such as the February 5, 1880, wedding of John M. and Carrie
Thompson, the daughter of Ithaca grocer Thaddeus Thompson, complete with a description of
the bride’s attire, wedding gifts (including a calendar clock) and the presence of the “city
orchestra” at the reception.12 The marriage in 1890 of John’s sister, Lois, to Cornell graduate J.
Herbert Ballantine, a member of the noted New Jersey brewing company, was covered as “the
nuptial event of the season.”13 The press followed the career of John’s brother, Charles, who
purchased and consolidated two newspapers in Ravenna, Ohio, commissioning John to design a
substantial new building there in 1904.14 The travels of John, Carrie and their daughter Amelia
were also noted by the local papers, whether trips to visit friends in Auburn, New York, to the
Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo in 1901 or to visit family in Pasadena, California in 1913.15
John M. Wilgus began his architectural career in the mid-1880s, and as a member of an
established family within the Ithaca community, he likely had numerous social and business
connections that would bolster his long and successful career. Unlike some of his
contemporaries, John M. Wilgus did not pursue architectural studies at Cornell University or
work in the prestigious office of William H. Miller. After some limited design work on his own,
he partnered with Alfred B. Dale, a well-known local architect during the last half of the 19th
century. 16Dale’s works included the Boardman House at 120 E. Buffalo St. (DeWitt Park
Historic District), the Griffin Block at 224 E. State St. (NR Ithaca Downtown Historic District),
and the Andrus-Whiton House at 222 S. Aurora St. (Individual Local Landmark). Although this
partnership was short-lived,17 it undoubtedly gave Wilgus valuable professional experience and
exposure to potential clients within and outside of the community. In June 1887, Wilgus set up
his own office in the Wilgus Block, and began designing buildings that ranged widely in terms of
architectural style and programmatic use.18 His works included everything from single-family
residences to three- and four-story mixed-use buildings to a least one religious structure. Some of
his early residential works included the F. M. Bush House at 110 N. Albany St. (1889;
Downtown West Historic District), E. P. Gilbert House at 518 E. State St. (c. 1893; East Hill
Historic District), and C. A. Ives duplex at 204 N. Cayuga St. (1893; DeWitt Park Historic
District).19 Wilgus’s mixed-use commercial and apartment buildings included the Livingston
Apartments at 318 E. Seneca St. (1896), 114-118 S. Cayuga St. (1898; NR Ithaca Downtown
Historic District), the McAllister Block at 418-426 Eddy St. (1894-95; redesigned and rebuilt
1908-09 after fire; East Hill Historic District), and the Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue
12 Ithaca Daily Journal, February 6, 1880, page 4.
13 Ithaca Democrat, September 25, 1890, page 1.
14 Ithaca Democrat, August 29,, 1895, page 5; Ithaca Daily Journal, May 28, 1904, page 3, respectively.
15 Ithaca Daily Journal, June 16, 1904, page 3; October 5, 1901, page 3; February 3, 1913, page 6, respectively.
16 Ithaca Daily Journal, Aug. 17, 1883, page 3; 1886 Ithaca City Directory.
17 Ithaca Daily Journal, June 9, 1887, page 3.
18 1888 Ithaca City Directory.
19 Ithaca Daily Journal, Apr. 17, 1888, page 3; Ithaca Daily Journal, Jan. 9, 1889, p.3; Ithaca Democrat, Aug. 17,
1893, page 5.
(1908).20 These buildings exhibit characteristics that reflect Wilgus’s pragmatic and economical
approach to building design, specifically their relatively simple brick façades with limited
ornamentation.
One of Wilgus’s more distinctive commissions, the First Church of Christ, Scientist again
demonstrated his ability to meet the aesthetic, practical and financial needs of his clients.
Located at the base of Cascadilla Park, an early-20th century planned residential development
along Cascadilla Gorge, this Craftsman Style church was designed to meet the aesthetic
requirements of this upscale development and the financial restrictions of the congregation that
commissioned it. Built in 1910-11, the church’s simple design reflected the architectural quality
of the surrounding residences, provided the programmatic space needed by the congregation, and
proved buildable within the limited means of the organization.21
The design of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue reflected this same practical
approach to design as well as the architect’s consideration of the needs and wishes of his client.
Reminiscent of his other mixed-use, commercial, and apartment buildings, Wilgus’s design for
the Chacona Block included a relatively unadorned west façade and north elevation, a simple
wood cornice and a stepped parapet. The building’s large windows openings, skylight over the
central interior staircase and light well between 411 and 413-415 College Avenue admitted
natural light into the interior spaces and reduced the need for artificial light, an expensive
amenity in 1912. The original storefronts on the 413-415 College Avenue reflected this same
design approach but on a much smaller scale. The large plate glass windows at street level on
the west façade and north elevation allowed pedestrians to easily see the merchandise within the
shops. The prism-glass transoms over the plate glass windows on the west façade provided
ventilation through their casement openings and directed natural light into the deep commercial
spaces, again reducing the need for artificial light. The wood cornice above the glazed
storefronts and the recessed doors completed the simple, yet highly functional, storefront
composition.
The client’s influence on the design was most distinctly represented in the pebble-dash stucco
exterior, a unique feature of this design, and the west façade’s stone plaques. The building’s
distinctive lion’s head and Greek cross decorative plaques at the fourth floor bore witness to
John N. Chacona’s native land.
Wilgus’s design also addressed concerns about life-safety in the quickly urbanizing Collegetown
neighborhood. Fires remained a tremendous threat in the neighborhood well into the early-20th
century. This danger was the result of the lack of running water in some buildings, the continued
use of kerosene and gas lighting, and the lack of organized fire protection for Collegetown.
Although the Company No. 9 firehouse was established in 1895 and a better water supply
secured, major fires continued to destroy properties on the hill. A 1907 fire damaged several
Eddy Street buildings, including the locations of the John Chacona Candy Company store, the
Student Agencies laundry, and a men’s clothing shop, possibly the Toggery Shops which moved
20 Ithaca Daily Journal, Feb. 15, 1910, page 5; National Register of Historic Places, Ithaca Downtown Historic
District, Ithaca, Tompkins, New York, National Register #04NR05326; Ithaca Democrat, Sept. 13, 1894, page 5, and
Ithaca Daily Journal, Nov. 11, 1908, page 3; Ithaca Daily Journal, Mar. 28, 1908, page 6, respectively.
21 Ithaca Daily Journal, May 23, 1910, page 3; July 15, 1910, page 3.
to the new Chacona Block along with the candy store in 1912. The modern rooming houses and
apartment buildings constructed in the early 1900s – Sheldon Court, the Larkin Building and
others – were constructed of fire-resistant materials, heated with steam, and illuminated with
electric lights to reduce the danger of fire. Wilgus incorporated these features as well as
structural terra cotta tile and stucco, steel framing and abundant sources of natural light into the
design to reduce the threat posed by fire.22
The commissioner of the Chacona Block, John N. Chacona, was an active and influential
member of the Greek-American business community in Ithaca at the turn of the 20th century.
John N. Chacona was born in Sparta, Greece in 1884 and immigrated to the United States at the
age of nine. He settled in the Ithaca area in 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy Company on
East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona.23 John P. Chacona was known as “Big John”
and John N. Chacona was known as “Little John”. These nicknames were commonly known and
frequently used to distinguish John P. from John N. in newspaper accounts of their business and
family activities. The two operated successful confectionary stores together and independently,
not only in Ithaca but also in Buffalo and Syracuse. When their partnership dissolved, John N.
opened several independent confectionary shops, the first being at 416 Eddy St. He also
operated the Sugar Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona.24
With the completion of the Chacona block in 1912, John N. opened another confectionary shop
in the storefront at 415 College Avenue. With its close proximity to Cornell University,
Chacona’s confectionary shop at 415 College Avenue, and John N. Chacona, himself, became
important parts of student life. In the April 26, 1918 issue of the Cornell Daily Sun, the satirical
“Freshman Rules for 1918-19” referenced the store in rule number three: “no freshman shall be
allowed in Chacona’s or downstairs in Candyland under any circumstances, nor upstairs in
either, unless accompanied by an upperclassman.”25 References to the John N. Chacona and his
candy shop appeared regularly in the Cornell Era, a student produced publication published
between 1868 and 1924. A poem titled “Fame” by Morris Bishop, class of 1913 and later
Cornell historian, in the 1912-1913 issue of this publication included these lines: “With the John
N. Chacona Hussars/Then followed the Greeks of the Candy Trade,/Their Martial rage to
evince/And red-haired youths spoiled my drinks/(I’ve hardly recovered since).”26
Apart from Chacona’s confectionary shop in 415 College Avenue, the storefronts at 411 and 413
College Avenue were occupied by numerous student-oriented businesses in the second and third
decades of the 20th century, including The Toggery Shops, a billiards establishment, A & B
22 An announcement in a local newspaper awarding the bids for the construction of the building noted that the
building was to be constructed of hollow tile with a stucco exterior, and that steel was to be used for girders and
beams. The masonry, structural steel and carpentry contract was reported to have been let to Ithaca Contracting
Company. Ithaca Chronicle & Democrat , August 17, 1911, page X. Upon completion of the Chacona Block, the No.
9 hook and ladder truck was called out to determine whether the extension ladder could reach the top of the new
building; it exceeded the height of the building by five feet. Ithaca Daily News, May 17, 1912, page 3
23 “J.N. Chacona’s Twenty Years,” Ithaca Daily News, August 16,1919, page 5
24 “They Linked Greece to Ithaca,” The Ithaca Journal, July 15, 1989, page 14A.
25 Cornell Daily Sun, April 26, 1918
26 “Fame,” Cornell Era, 1912-13, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 3.
Stores selling student supplies, and the Orchard Tea Shop. Pop’s Place, the confectionary shop
and, later, restaurant operated by John G. Papayanakos, replaced the Chacona shop in the corner
space at 415 College Avenue. During this time, at least two physicians rented flats for use as
offices, while they resided elsewhere. Several Chacona family members, including John N.
Chacona, also lived in the building. Although it was in a prime location for attracting student
renters, the building’s other early occupants were widows and professionals, including the
principal of the Cascadilla School, suggesting that the six-room flats were beyond the means of
most students at the time.27
The relocation of John N. Chacona’s confectionary shop from Eddy Street to College Avenue
was part of a larger shift in student- and university-oriented businesses from Eddy Street to
College Avenue in the early decades of the twentieth century. Other businesses that moved from
Eddy Street to College Avenue at this time were L.C. Bement’s Toggery Shops, relocating to the
Chacona Block, and the Taylor & Co. Book Shop, relocating to ground floor of Sheldon Court.
While the nineteenth century saw student-oriented development both downtown and at the edge
of campus with a concentration along Eddy Street, in the early twentieth century, the
construction of large, commercial-style mixed-use buildings firmly established the 400 block of
College Avenue as the heart of Collegetown. The construction of the Chacona Block was a key
part of the area’s transformation from an extension of downtown housing and services to a
vibrant neighborhood with a distinct identity. The distinct shift was documented in following
passage in the October 16, 1912 issue of the Cornell Alumni News:
Mercantile changes have taken place on the fringe of the campus. Right at the end
of College Avenue (Huestis Street), near the campus entrance, across from
Sheldon Court, Little John Chacona has built a big stucco block for stores and
apartments. Little John sells candy and ice cream there. One of the stores in the
block has been occupied by L.C. Bement, the hatter, hosier, etc., etc., who has
given up his shop on Eddy Street. Taylor & Company also have closed their Eddy
Street store and have doubled the size of the Triangle Book Shop in Sheldon Court.
Business tends to seek the center of population, and the student center has moved
up the hill in recent years. Hence the removals from Eddy Street. College Avenue
now drains a big area of students every day, and it is lined with shops for two long
blocks.28
The dual nomenclature of College Avenue in this passage alluded to a significant event that
permanently marked this street as the geographic center of Collegetown. With support from the
street residents and business owners, the City of Ithaca renamed Huestis Street as College
Avenue in 1908.
Three years after opening his 415 College Avenue store, he sold the business to his brothers,
Paul and Marcus, when he sailed to Greece to visit family. Upon his return to Ithaca in 1917,
John N. purchased the confectionary back from his brothers and operated the business until 1919,
27 Ithaca city directories, 1864-1981, Historic Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY.
28 Cornell Alumni News, October 16, 1912.
when he sold the shop and block and returned to Greece, this time to bring his wife and children
back to Ithaca.29 He also established Cozy Corners, a “delicatessen lunch and imported food
novelty shop,” at the corner of E Buffalo and N. Aurora Streets in 1926.30
In 1919 John N. Chacona sold the Chacona Block and confectionary business to James P. and
John G. Papayanakos, immigrants or their descendants hailing from the same Greek village as
the Chaconas. Papayanakos' business became known as Pop's Place and operated at 415 College
Avenue until 1977 under a series of owners, many of whom were Greek-American.31 In fact, the
ownership of the building and proprietorship of tenant businesses at 413-415 College Avenue
through much of the twentieth century appears to have been by immigrants and/or their
descendants from the same village.32 The close business associations of these families were part
of the national pattern of cultural and family ties maintained by Greek and other immigrant
groups.
The southern portion of the Chacona Block, 411 College Avenue, came under different
ownership in 1925 when it was sold to George F. Doll, the proprietor of a men’s clothing shop
occupying the storefront of 411. In 1954 he sold the property to Emmet M. and Mabel Doane
(Mabel operated the Hill Beauty Shoppe out of the storefront of 411), who in turn sold to Student
Agencies Properties, Inc. in 1972. The owners of 413-415 College Avenue at that time, Lynn
Breedlove and Gary Gut, sold the northern portion of the Chacona Block to Student Agencies in
1977, once again consolidating the two parcels’ ownership.
Student Agencies Properties, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Student Agencies, Inc., the
oldest independent student-run company in the United States. It was founded in 1894, providing
laundry and other profitable services to the student population. For several years the company
was sold from board to board, as students graduated and moved on, before it was finally
incorporated in 1910. With over $2 million in annual revenues, Student Agencies is the second-
largest employer of students after Cornell, and its services include shipping and storage, moving,
campus promotions, note-taking, housing, and publication of the Cornellian Yearbook.33
Student Agencies had made improvements and modifications to the Chacona Block over the last
30 years, including the installation of a sprinkler system. In the 1990s 411 and 413-415, which
already shared a single fire escape, were consolidated into a single parcel.
29 Ithaca Daily Journal, February 15, 1917, page 5.
30 Advertisement, The Ithaca Journal, February 19, 1926, page 13.
31 "Pop's Place, Higher rent ends the experiment," Ithaca Journal, June 9, 1977, page 20.
32 Directory of the Tsintzinian Heritage Society of America. Owners of 413-415 College Avenue included James P.
and John G. Papayanakos (likely two of three brothers who settled in Ithaca in the mid-1920s), George P. Nickles
(original name Nikolaides), Peter J. Poulos (a John J. Poulos reportedly came to Ithaca before 1913), and
Constantine J. Manos (original name Voulomanos). Long-term leases on the candy shop were given to Constantine
J. Manos and George Conomikes (originally Economikis).
33 “Our Company,” Student Agencies, Inc., accessed June 29, 2012,
www.studentagencies.com/info.php?page=our_company
Today, the tenants of the Chacona Block’s storefronts – two eateries and a store selling t-shirts
and other Cornell-logo gear – reflect changes to the character of Collegetown and the orientation
of its businesses in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The variety of businesses
catering to students and other residents once included bookstores, salons and barbershops,
eateries, and clothing and shoe stores. Today, dining and entertainment are by far the largest
proportion of business types in the neighborhood. The residential units within the Chacona
block, reorganized to offer 1-bedroom to 5-bedroom apartments, remain highly desirable as
student rentals.
Proposed Local Designation, 411-415 College Ave (The Chacona Block)
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held September 26, 2017
Moved by Schroeder, seconded by Jones Rounds and unanimously approved
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board shall file the attached report with respect to the issues stipulated in the
Municipal Code. Proposed Local Designation: 403 College Avenue (The Chacona Block)
At the regular monthly meeting on August 8, 2017 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue as a local
landmark. A map showing the location of the building and a summary of its historic and architectural
significance are attached to this report.
As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation,
“The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such
designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and
any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.”
The following report has been prepared to address these considerations.
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 Chacona 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 of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features,” by Mary Tomlan 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 College Avenue.
Local designation is consistent with the Collegetown Plan and the 2009 Collegetown historic
resources survey.
2.Relation to Zoning Laws
The property is located in the Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) zoning district, the purpose and intent of
which are as follows:
The Mixed Use districts 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 permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Building
height in the district is limited to a maximum of 6 stories and 80’ and a minimum of 4 stories
and 45’. The existing building is four stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition
of stories. Any proposed exterior alterations or additions would be subject to the area
requirements in the MU-2 Zoning district and would require ILPC review to assess the visual
and historic compatibility.
3.Relation to Projected Public Improvements
Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of College Avenue, including the 400
block, where 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 and Economic Development Committee
October 11, 2017
RE: LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE CHACONA BLOCK AT 411-415
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 August 8, 2017, the ILPC concluded a public hearing for the purpose of
considering a proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College
Avenue as a local landmark, and
WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and as such requires no further environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 defining a “Local
Landmark” under Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code and on August 8, 2017,
voted to recommend the designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College
Avenue, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file
a report with Common Council with respect to the relation of such designation to
the comprehensive plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any
plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the
designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on September 26, 2017,
has been reviewed by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the 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 Chacona Block at 411-415 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 and Economic Development Committee
October 11, 2017
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age;
or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by
virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Common Council [approves/disapproves] the designation of the
Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue and the adjacent areas that are
identified as tax parcel #64.-2-1 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, 411-415 College Ave (The Chacona Block)
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held September 26, 2017
Moved by Schroeder, seconded by Jones Rounds and unanimously approved
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board shall file the attached report with respect to the issues stipulated in the
Municipal Code. Proposed Local Designation: 403 College Avenue (The Chacona Block)
At the regular monthly meeting on August 8, 2017 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue as a local
landmark. A map showing the location of the building and a summary of its historic and architectural
significance are attached to this report.
As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation,
“The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such
designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and
any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved.”
The following report has been prepared to address these considerations.
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 Chacona 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 of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features,” by Mary Tomlan 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 College Avenue.
Local designation is consistent with the Collegetown Plan and the 2009 Collegetown historic
resources survey.
2.Relation to Zoning Laws
The property is located in the Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) zoning district, the purpose and intent of
which are as follows:
The Mixed Use districts 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 permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Building
height in the district is limited to a maximum of 6 stories and 80’ and a minimum of 4 stories
and 45’. The existing building is four stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition
of stories. Any proposed exterior alterations or additions would be subject to the area
requirements in the MU-2 Zoning district and would require ILPC review to assess the visual
and historic compatibility.
3.Relation to Projected Public Improvements
Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of College Avenue, including the 400
block, where 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.