HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-18 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: March 14, 2018
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 – Chainworks Planned Unit Development
3) Public Comment
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Public Hearings Announcement – 2018 HUD Entitlement
Program Action Plan
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Proposed Historic Designation of the Nines Building
b) Planned Unit Development Overlay District
c) Parks Master Plan:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/618/Parks‐Recreation‐
Master‐Plan
6) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Green Building Policy
b) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing
Requirement
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) January 2018
b) February 2018
8) Adjournment
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability
Coordinator
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
6:00
6:05
6:20
6:30
6:35
7:00
7:30
7:50
8:20
8:50
9:00
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, March 13, 2018.
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning & Development
Date: March 7, 2018
RE: Chain Works District Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Comments Received and Estimated
Schedule & Process
Please find attached the complied comments received as of March 6, 2018 on the draft legislation and
design guidelines for the proposed Chainworks District PUD. I have also included information provided
by the applicant in response to questions about industrial use and height. A public hearing for this
proposal is scheduled for the March 14, 2018 Planning Committee meeting.
The review and adoption of the PUD and Design Guidelines must be coordinated with the completion of
the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed project. The remaining approval
sequence and estimated timeline for the Planning and Economic Development Committee is as follows:
Planning Committee Meeting Public Hearing March 14, 2018
Planning Committee Meeting Review all comments and direct staff to make any changes April 11, 2018
Planning Committee Meeting Review revised PUD and Design Guidelines
May 9, 2018
Direct staff to make any further changes
Planning Committee Meeting Review revised Final PUD & Design Guidelines June 13, 2018
Direct Staff to (re) circulate if needed
Review Draft Finding for Environmental Impact Statement
Planning Committee Meeting Public Hearing (If needed)
July 11, 2018 Recommendation to Adopt PUD & Design Guidelines
Recommendation to Adopt Findings For Environment Impact
Statement
Common Council Meeting Involved Agency Adoption of Findings
August 1, 2018
Adoption of PUD & Design Guidelines
Please contact me if you have questions of would like additional information. lnicholas@cityofithaca.org
607-274-6557.
Attachments:
Applicant’s response to question regarding height industrial use
Compiled comments on the Chain Works District PUD and Design Guidelines
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
To: Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning
City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND, Project Consultant
Re: Proposed Changes to Chain Works District Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Date: March 8, 2018
Overview of Proposed Changes
At the recent Planning & Development Board special meeting held January 31,
2018, we received inquiries regarding low impact industrial and research and
development facility uses at Chain Works District. Following up on this, we
corresponded with the Uniland Development Company, a development / real
estate firm that CJS Architects have been coordinating with in Buffalo. They have
worked with CJS to do test fits for these uses in buildings 13A, 13B, and 35; please
see attached map.
Rather than creating yet another new zone (or an overlay) showing areas where
industrial uses would be permitted at CWD, we plan to revise the draft PUD to
indicated that these uses are permitted in the CW3 with an ’S’ (special permit)
designation – and, limited only to buildings 13A, 13B, and 35. Below we have
proposed approval criteria to assist both the Board(s) and Applicant in the
review process as this use warrants special evaluation. This criteria would apply
regardless of whether granting of Special Permits remains with the City’s Board
of Zoning Appeals or is transferred to the City’s Planning & Development Board.
Proposed Special Permit criteria
•The processing or manufacturing of finished products or parts from
previously prepared materials (including processing, fabrication, assembly,
treatment, and packaging of such products, and incidental storage, sales,
and distribution of such products) must be contained entirely within a fully
enclosed building.
•All incidental outdoor storage must be screened from public view by opaque
fencing, screening, or landscaping.
•A light industrial use may include a showroom or ancillary sales of products
related to the items manufactured on-site.
•Storage of materials that are explosive, corrosive, combustible, or which are
controlled substances due to being pharmaceutical in nature, infectious in
nature, putrescent in nature, or which have a toxic or deleterious health or
environmental impact are prohibited.
•Any heat, glare, dust, smoke, fumes, odors, or vibration must be confined to
the building.
•Industrial - low impact uses are permitted only in existing Buildings 13A, 13B,
and 35.
Please contact me at cjr@randall-west.com or 607-252-6710 with any questions.
CHAIN DRIVETURNER PLACES.CAYUGA STREETSCOUT PATHBCCCLOADINGDOCKAACARetainingWallLOWER MORSE PLACEMORSE PLACEMORSE PLACEUPPER MORSE PLACEABBAAAABN16ALOADINGDOCKBLDG 17BLDG 18BLDG 2BLDG1BLDG 3BLDG 4BLDG 8BLDG 5BLDG 13ABLDG 13BBLDG 6 BLDG 35BLDG 33BLDG 34BLDG24BLDG21BLDG 10PARTIALBLDG 6ALOWER MORSE PLACEP R O P O S E D P A R C E L O U - 1F O U N T A I N S T R E E TT U R N E R P L A C ES O U T H H I L L
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
S
O
U
T
H
C
A
Y
U
G
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B
CITY
OF
ITHACATOWN OF
ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACACITY OF ITHACAN Y S E GS U B S T A T I O N1 0 0'
N
Y
S
E
G
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T1 0 0' N Y S E G E A S E M E N T2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - WPARCEL OU-1N/F"EMERSON P.T."S U B S T A T I O NDRIVEIDRIVEIIDRIVEIIIN1N2N3N4N5N6N7N9N10N11N12N13N14N15EXIST. BLDG'S 2-6N8REQUIRED 30 FT. WIDE BUILDING BUFFERREQUIRED 30 FT. WIDE BUILDING BUFFERREQUIRED 30 FT. BUILDING BUFFERRESIDENTIAL USECOMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL USEINDUSTRIAL USE
Special Meeting of the Planning and Development Board
January 30, 2018
Anya Harris
Hello All, Please find attached a PDF of the agenda. A special meeting of the Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, January 30, 2018, starting at 6:00 p.m. in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 E. Green St., Ithaca. The
agenda with meeting materials
Thu 1/18
Jeanne Grace
Actions
In response to the message from Anya Harris, Thu 1/18
To:
Anya Harris
Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:12 AM
Page 18 of the PUD calls for tree lawn with a minimum width of 4 ft, I think it should be 6ft to be in line
with our city site plan ordinance.
I appreciate that they clearly consulted the city site plan ordinance and forestry master plan as some of
the text is verbatim. That's great!
Jeanne
Jeanne Grace
City Forester
City of Ithaca
Department of Public Works
Division of Parks and Forestry
245 Pier Rd
Ithaca NY 14850
607-272-1718
fax 607-272-4374
Chain Works comments
George McGonigal
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: JoAnn Cornish; Common Council
Good morning, Lisa,
I have some comments about the Chain Works design guidelines, although I'm not sure if my concerns are about the
guidelines or about proposed zoning limitations.
My first concern is about the elimination of any possible low impact industrial uses, or warehousing. I thought that was one
of our goals for the existing industrial buildings. Am I misunderstanding what I am reading? I would think that the creation
of good jobs should be a large part of the plan for this property. Light industrial use would accomplish that goal, without
being a detriment to the other planned uses. So, I would respectfully suggest putting a P beside low impact industrial use.
I would also include warehousing as a primary use, because of how the existing buildings lend themselves to that function.
They could be used for that tomorrow. This afternoon, actually.
My second concern involves the height of new buildings. I think we are setting the bar too high. I think three stories for
CW3A, and four stories for CW3B would compliment the existing neighborhood much better, particularly since an
additional one or two stories can be created on the downhill sides of the new buildings.
Perhaps my strongest objection, if I am reading things correctly, is the building height of 180 ft., by right, and potentially
240 ft. Is this true? That would be 12 to 20 story buildings? Behind nearby two story houses in a residential neighborhood,
with a mere 30ft. setback? Am I misinterpreting this? As one of the members of Common Council who represents this
neighborhood, I am very strongly opposed to this possibility.
Thanks very much, Lisa. Could you please send these comments along to the Planning Board? Thanks again.
yours,
George McG
George McGonigal
Common Council, First Ward
tel: 272-0639
Comments on draft Chain Works PUD Zoning
Cynthia Brock
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:40 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Common Council
Attachments:2018.01.30 Comments on dra~1.pdf (87 KB)
Lisa,
Please accept my comments on the December 7, 2017 Draft of the Chain Works District PUD Zoning
Code, for inclusion and consideration in the upcoming Planning and Economic Development
Committee agenda. I will send my comment on the draft Design Guidelines separately.
In my suggested edits, I indicate additions to the text with an underline, and I indicate proposed
deletions from the text with a strikethrough. Highlighted areas indicate missing information.
A. Findings
4.b) Create an identifiable community that bridges the City and Town of Ithaca by reactivating
a property with an formerly idle industrial complex;
4.c) Avoid sprawl by repurposing existing structures with potential future development where
adequate infrastructure and appropriate environmental conditions exists, comprised of a
greater mix of uses than the existing Industrial zoning allows;
4.f) Encourage walking, biking, car sharing, and public transit by providing the minimum
amount of parking necessary for Chain Works District residences and businesses and by
establishing management oversight practices to prohibit resident and business parking
spillover into neighboring streets;
C. Applicability and Administration
Question/Request:
1.b) What is PUD #1? This is not defined and never mentioned again in the document.
Should you delete #1?
1.c) Please include the applicable regulation either for the DEC or Dept of Health pertaining to
appropriate cleanup standards and objectives required for unrestricted residential, restricted
residential use. I believe it is New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Subpart 375-6 Remedial Program Soil Cleanup Objectives. Please investigate and confirm.
Table ________: Environmental Quality Review Thresholds and Conditions* is incomplete and
referenced Tables are not included in the document.
Transportation: What is Table 5.7-4? Where will this be in the PUD document?
Utilities: What is Table 13? Where will this be in the document?
Light: I suggest adding a limit on light pollution although this should be located along
with limits on noise pollution.
Visual and Aesthetic Resources: What is Table 7? Where will this be in the document?
D. Sub Area and Character Intent
1) Natural Area / CW1
Section E. Permitted Uses indicates that off-street parking garage or parking spaces
shall be allowed in CW1, but parking is not mentioned in this chapter. It should be
mentioned here in order to provide clarity as compared to the statement "These areas
consist of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition...."
2) Neighborhood Center Area / CW3 A&B
Add category CW3Aa and CW3Ab
Expand CW3A to include the periphery abutting the existing residential homes on
Hillview Place, Turner Place, South Hill Terrace, South Cayuga Street. This limits the
building height to 4 stories, and establishes a buffer area around established residential
neighborhoods.
CW3Aa should be the region along Hillview Place, Turner Place, South Hill Terrace and
South Cayuga Street.
CW3Ab should be the region along South Aurora
E. Permitted Uses
Please remove all bullets in the Definitions and Conditions column, to avoid confusion with
bullets indicating a disallowed use.
Please add column separation between CW3Aa, CW3Ab, and CW3B. CW3Aa should be limited
to Residential, and Office use. CW3Ab should be limited to Residential, Office, Lodging,
Office, and Retail and service uses.
Question - how does the City enforce is noise ordinance when there is no zoning separating
residential from commercial use? If there is an auto repair shop and a housing unit next
door, how does one enforce noise complaints when high powered machinery is used during
the daytime and the bay doors are open?
Collective living:
What does <=1.5 residents per bedroom mean?
There should be an upper limit to number of persons allowed in a collective living
arrangement. My suggestion would be 5.
What does temporary mean? Is a 9-month lease considered temporary?
Live-work housing:
What does GFA mean? This is not indicated or defined in the document.
If the live-work housing unit is principally a housing unit, how can the non-residential
space occupy <= 75% of the unit? It appears to be principally a work space, with
incidental housing attached.
Residential Care:
Should this definition include residential care for all ages? Zoning use requirements
should not discriminate based on age.
Day care center: Please remove references to "Day".
Day care: pet: Please remove references to "Day".
Restaurant/bar: Are all CW3 areas to allow beer, wine and alcohol production, packaging and
distribution areas? These are not indicated or defined in the document. I would not agree that
alcohol production should be allowed in all of CW3A+B. Additional setbacks should be
required between residential use, and areas for the production of distilled spirits.
Retail and service - heavy: Is food processing included? The language indicates that food
processing is excluded from this definition. Does that mean it is allowed or disallowed in
CW3?
Civic Use: Does a fitness center or other athletic or sports facility fall somewhere in this
definition or deserve its own classification?
Club: What is a multiple dwelling? This is not indicated or defined in the document.
Accessory Use -- Day care home: I believe this is covered under Retail and service, and
should be deleted from this section.
1. Additional Requirements for Specified Uses
a. Day Care - Pet iii. All animal wastes shall be disposed of properly to avoid odor,
diseases, and contamination of soils, creeks, waterways, and drinking water supplies.
g. Antenna - i. Question: does an antenna add to the height of a structure? Is an
antenna a structure?
g. Antenna - v. Flags hung from antennas are prohibited.
F. Required Buffer Areas
Edit (delete, add):
CW1: Not applicable for this Sub Areas. A minimum 30 foot Side and/or Rear Yard Buffer is
required for all structures within 100' of existing residential buildings located outside the
Chain Works District. Despite the fact that structures in this area are limited to auxiliary
structures, there should be a setback to make sure that buildings that will have a public-
oriented use: bathrooms, sheds, visitor centers, etc., are set back away from existing
residential buildings.
CW3A+B:
Accessory buildings less than 300 sq ft and covered parking are allowed within the
required Buffer but must be more than 10 feet from all property lines.
Please update the included map to clearly indicate all 30' Side and/or Rear Yard Buffer Areas
within 100' of existing residential buildings adjacent to the Chain Works District. Please
include all residential areas along South Aurora Street, Hillview Place, Turner Place, South Hill
Terrace, South Cayuga Street and West Spencer Street.
G. Site
1) Maximum Building Area
CW3A - This transition area should provide a scaled transition between the more intense
mixed use CW3B and established residential neighborhoods in a manner similar to CR-4.
Building area should 50% maximum. 80% of the Building Site Envelope
2) Building Setbacks and Green Space
CW3A - This transition area should provide a scaled transition between the more intense
mixed use CW3B and established residential neighborhoods in a manner similar to CR-4.
Green space should be minimum 25%.
Front Yard setback should be 10 feet Minimum Front Yard 0'
Side Yard setback should be 5 feet
I. Buildings
Table 1 is incomplete in the draft. Functional Entry, Glazing Coverage Areas and Blank Wall
requirements are missing from the document.
1) Building Height
In CW3A the grade plane shall be defined as the grade of the land on the side facing
established residential areas (South Aurora Street, Hillview Place, Turner Place, South
Hill Terrace, South Cayuga Street and West Spencer Street).
In CW3A the maximum stories above grade plane shall be 2, allowing for an increase to
4 stories after a 12 foot step back from the side facing established residential areas
(South Aurora Street, Hillview Place, Turner Place, South Hill Terrace, South Cayuga
Street and West Spencer Street).
2) Front Facade Length
In CW3A the maximum front facade length shall not be more than 120% of the average
front facade length of the existing buildings in the adjacent established residential areas
(South Aurora Street, Hillview Place, Turner Place, South Hill Terrace, South Cayuga
Street and West Spencer Street).
K. Performance Standards
B.(2) All storage shall be effectively screened from the view of neighboring properties,
and pedestrian passersby on any public way adjacent to the premises containing such storage.
B.(4) Outside display of finished and semifinished products must be effectively screened from
the view of neighboring properties, and pedestrian passersby on any public way adjacent to
the premises on which such products are displayed.
D. Vibration. Question: How does this pertain to building vibrations?
I. Industrial sewage and waste. All use must comply with Chapter 264 of the City Code:
Sewer Use.
M. Storm Water. Please add a section pertaining to responsibility for appropriate storm water
retention and management.
Best,
Cynthia
Cynthia Brock
First Ward Alderperson
City of Ithaca, N.Y.
607 398-0883 (text friendly)
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Special Joint Committee for Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant Board Chair
Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee Liaison
Tompkins County Water Resources Council
Cayuga Lake Watershed Inter-municipal Organization
“Tolerance and understanding won't 'trickle down' in our society any more than wealth does."
~ Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay (Celebrated, controversial, and activist champion boxer, 1942‐2016)
To preserve a development buffer for the areas immediately adjacent to
residential properties. To limit building heights in this buffer area, and I
proposed that the height be limited to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing
homes. Without this...
Fred Schwartz [fes@twcny.rr.com]
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:13 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Cynthia Brock
Lisa,
I can’t find anything to add to or quarrel with in Cynthia’s comments, so I just repeat them here. Please
record my endorsement.
To preserve a development buffer for the areas immediately adjacent to residential
properties.
To limit building heights in this buffer area, and I proposed that the height be limited to 2
stories immediately adjacent to existing homes. Without this change the developers are
proposing 4 stories based on the internal street front, which because of the hill side could
be much higher from the back side which faces the existing homes.
To prohibit restaurants, breweries and distilleries from areas next to existing homes.
To establish that public buildings in the CW1 area be set back 30' from homes.
To limit spillover parking into adjacent areas
To limit building length along established residential areas
To add a green space requirement to areas adjacent to established residential areas
Fred Schwartz
303 Columbia St.
607-592-0020
draft Chain Works District PUD zoning code comment
John Graves [johngraves319@gmail.com]
Sent:Sunday, February 04, 2018 8:34 AM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: SHCA-LIST@yahoogroups.com
To: Lisa Nicholas
Re: draft Chain Works District PUD zoning code comment
I’m not familiar with PUD zoning codes but the areas that I would like to see addressed are:
Stormwater - Will the stormwater run-off plan for the CWD be in compliance with the NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation Stormwater Management Design Manual? I believe the CWD should be
considered a sensitive stormwater run-off area because the watershed directly effects Six Mile Creek.
The CWD PUD zoning code should require the first one inch of rainwater to be retained on Site.
Transportation - Will the CWD PUD zoning code require a direct TCAT bus route? This route should
not require backtracking but allow the bus to enter the CWD at one point and exit at a different point. In
consultation with TCAT, this issue was deemed to be very important and one that they would like to sort-
out in the development stage.
Green Buildings - I asume the PUD zoning code will require the CWD to be in compliance with the
Ithaca Green Building Policy (IGBP)? I hope the PUD zoning code will also encourage the CWD to go
beyond the IGBP to become a Zero Energy development or a neighborhood that generates all the energy
it consumes on site. Encouraging the concept of a CWD neighborhood microgrid will allow all buildings
developed within the CWD to reach Green Building status.
Student Housing - The CWD is a brand new neighborhood being designed on South Hill. I hope the
CWD PUD zoning code will encourage housing to be designed for students and not just for market rate
residents. As a new neighborhood directly across Route 96B from the Ithaca College campus, it seems
reasonable that students should be part of the new neighborhood's demographic.
Affordable Housing - The lack of affordable housing in the City, Town and County is the top issue
facing our community and one that should be addressed in the CWD PUD zoning code. The PUD zoning
code should encourage a mixed demographic and one that addresses the needs of our community.
Regards,
John Graves
319 Pleasant Street
607-279-4980
Chain Works comments
George McGonigal
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:09 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: JoAnn Cornish; Common Council; Svante Myrick; Dan Cogan; SHCA-LIST@yahoogroups.com
Hello Lisa,
I have some additional comments I'd like to submit regarding both the zoning and design guidelines for the proposed Chain
Works development.
I am concerned about putting very tall buildings up tight behind existing 2 story family housing and back yards. I think the
required buffer zone should therefor be increased by 50%, to 45 ft.
Additionally, I would like to see the CW3A height limitations extended to the boundaries with all existing houses, (i.e.,
behind Hillview and Turner Place), not just along South Aurora St.
Better yet, I think that "human scale" could be better achieved if the entire development was limited to the CW3A
requirements. Four stories would thus be as high as new buildings could go. This would still be taller than anything else
currently on South Hill, inside the City.
Lastly, I believe that it is crucial to add an affordable housing component to this development. Preferably one that is geared
toward families, meaning apartments that are 2 and 3 and perhaps 4 bedrooms. Ideally, this portion of the development
would be in the northeast portion of the property, closest to South Hill Elementary School. Additionally, it would be good
to require some playground infrastructure within the development, not just green space.
I believe that moving some of the proposed new buildings farther to the south could be preferable in that there would be less
density (crowding) in the northern portion of the property, and more opportunity to build outdoor recreational infrastructure,
(i.e., playgrounds).
Thanks for including these additional comments and suggestions, Lisa.
yours,
George McG
George McGonigal
Common Council, First Ward
tel: 272-0639
Memo
From: Planning and Development Board
To: Common Council
Re: Planning Board comments on the proposed Chainworks District PUD & Design Guidelines
Date: March 5, 2018
The Planning Board discussed the Chainworks District PUD and Design Guidelines at a Special Meeting
on January 30, 2018 and agreed to submit the following comments.
Numerous typos and clarifications for both documents are attached.
General comment- change passive voice to active voice throughout.
Comments on the PUD:
1. Section B – last paragraph: remove the work ‘prescriptive’ from the first line and use stronger
language regarding Design Guideline compliance. Replace ‘suggested’ with ‘expected, unless
the Board determines that there clear and compelling reasons for non-compliance’
2. Permitted Use Table:
a. Park: Use list differs from description of CW 1- should it be the same? Add the word
‘outdoor’ before ‘community pavilion’
b. Solar panels/farm – change to Allowed by Special Permit in CW1
c. Off- Street parking: Replace the word ‘above with ‘in its subarea only’. Change to
Allowed by Special Permit in CW1
4. F. Required Buffer Areas: Remove the provision for covered parking (which is of unspecified size)
within the buffer area. Buffer area should be described as such: “A 30 ft buffer area without
primary structures is required wherever CWD directly abuts R-1, R-2 or R-3 Zoning Districts
except at the Rt. 96B street line. See attached diagram.
5. L. Appeals: insert ‘Planning and Development’ before the ‘Board’ (3 instances)
Comments on the Design Guidelines:
1. B. Sub Area Enumeration and Intended Character: Last sentence to read: ‘Development in the
CW3B Sub Area is limited to 6 stories with an allowance for an additional 1-2 stories below the
grade plan on the downhill side’. This also needs a diagram for clarification.
2. C. Design Review Process: Second paragraph to read as follows: “In addition to design review, a
project must be reviewed by the full Planning and Development Board to verify that it complies
with the base zoning standards in the City of Ithaca Code for the Chainworks PUD (Insert
Number), the provisions of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, and the adopted Findings Statement
of the Chainworks FGEIS. All locally designated historic properties are exempt from design
review because they undergo a special approval process conducted by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC).
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
3. D. Precedent Images.
a. Page 6-bottom image- add a note clarifying that the foreground building (not the
background reflective glass tower) is the precedent.
b. Find better examples characteristics on page 9
4. E. Building Guidelines:
a. Architecture under b. – add language about building mechanicals from CAFD
b. Architecture under f. – remove the words ‘where practical’
5. F. Landscaping and General Site Guidelines
a. Under a – revise sentence to read: “ Street trees should be planted below the grade of
the sidewalk and the street in structural cells with sufficient root space or in a tree lawn
b. Under e – insert words ‘and other plantings’
6. Site Selection for Tree Planting:
a. Under a- tree lawns should be 8’ wide wherever possible
b. Under e- to read: No tree is to be planted directly under or in competition with an
existing large tree.
c. Under f.- add sentence: It is preferred that utility wires be placed underground.
d. Under h.- remove ‘When possible’
7. Tree Planting
a. Under a- insert the word ‘already’ before the word ‘shaded’
b. Under c.- add sentence: It is preferred that utility wires be placed underground.
8. Thoroughfare Assembly – graphic street sections showing preferred moving lane widths, parking
lane widths, curbs, tree lawns, sidewalk, etc, should be provided. Maximum speed limit should
be stated.
9. Topics missing from the Design Guidelines:
a. Site Planning
b. Street design sections
c. Plaza Design
d. Signage
e. Standards for renovation and reuse of buildings
TO: Members of the Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue
DATE: February 26, 2018
At their regular monthly meeting on February 13, 2018, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC) held a public hearing to consider the designation of the property located at 311 College Avenue as
an individual local landmark. At the conclusion of that public hearing, the ILPC voted to recommend that
Common Council proceed with the designation of this historic resource. Included in this packet are
copies of the resolution adopted by the ILPC, the nomination form documenting the historic and
architectural significance of the Former No. 9 Fire Station, and written public comments and letters
received regarding the proposed designation.
Based on the information provided in the nomination, the ILPC found that the Former No. 9 Station at
311 College Avenue is eligible for local designation based on criteria 1 and 4 as set forth in Section 228-3
of the Municipal Code. Per criterion 1, the Former No. 9 Fire Station “possesses special historical and
aesthetic interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City of Ithaca”
for its facilitation of the growth of Cornell University and the upper East Hill community that would
become Collegetown, its role in the history of firefighting services in the City of Ithaca and on East Hill
in particular, and its representation of the City and university’s collaborative relationship during the late-
nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Per criterion 4, the Former No.9 Fire Station “is the work of a
designer whose work has significantly influenced an age.” Built in two distinct phases, the fire station is
associated with two locally significant architecture firms. The design for the original 1894-95 fire station
was donated to the City by the firm of Vivian & Gibb, the team responsible for the designs of the
Cascadilla Boathouse and the pavilion complex at Stewart Park. The 1907-08 addition (visible from
College Avenue) was designed by the firm of Gibb and Waltz, who’s other notable works include the
Ithaca Masonic Temple and Rand Hall on the Cornell University campus.
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. Copies of their report and recommendation to approve the designation are attached.
The Planning and Economic Development Committee is now requested to act on the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue. Possible Committee
actions include recommending to Common Council the approval of the designation, disapproving the
recommendation, forwarding the recommendation to Common Council with the Committee’s
recommendation to disapprove the designation, or referring the proposed designation back to the ILPC for
modification. These options are outlined in the draft resolution included in this packet.
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
Proposed Local Designation, 311 College Avenue- No. 9 Fire Station
Planning and Development Board, Meeting Held February 27, 2018
Moved by Schroeder, seconded by Elliott and unanimously approved
RESOLVED: that the Planning Board shall file the attached report with respect to the issues stipulated
in the Municipal Code regarding the proposed Local Designation of 311 College Avenue (No. 9 Fire
Station)
At its regular monthly meeting on February 13, 2018, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the No. 9 Fire Station at 311 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 & 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.
As part of the process of creating 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 No. 9 Fire Station was identified as an individual building potentially worthy of designation.
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 has three stories with a two story portion in the rear and a one story
portion in the front. Local designation may allow 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 300 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, and be it further
RESOLVED: that the No. 9 Fire Station’s front open space, where generations of Ithacans and
Cornellians have enjoyed outdoor dining, is a valued urban resource that plays a key role in
adding vitality, enhancing community and providing human scale within central Collegetown,
now, therefore be it
RESOLVED: that for all the reasons stated in the attached Historic Resource Inventory Form and
ILPC resolution, plus the reasons stated immediately above, the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board supports the proposed local designation of the No. 9 Fire Station.
ILPC Meeting – 02/13/18
Resolution - RA
RE: Local Historic Landmark Designation of the former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) may recommend the designation of historic landmarks and
districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018, for the purpose of considering a
proposal to designate the former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue as a City of
Ithaca landmark has been concluded, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form
dated February 13, 2018, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative
Description of Significance prepared by Katelin Olson, and
WHEREAS, the designation of historic landmarks is a "Type II Action" under the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (Sec. 617.5(C)(30) and an "Unlisted Action" under
the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR Sec. 176-2) for which no
further environmental review is required, and
WHEREAS, consideration of the former No. 9 Fire Station 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, 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.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, February 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
2
RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own, the documentation and information more
fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building Structure Inventory Form
dated February 13, 2018, 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 Katelin Olson and dated February
13, 2018, the former No. 9 Fire Station (1894-95) and its 1907-08 addition are
structures deemed worthy of preservation by reason of their value to the city as
enumerated below:
Per criterion 1, the former No. 9 Fire Station possesses special historical and
aesthetic interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural
characteristics of the City of Ithaca for its facilitation of the growth of Cornell
University and the upper East Hill community that would become Collegetown, its
role in the history of firefighting services in the City of Ithaca and on East Hill in
particular, and its representation of the City and university’s collaborative
relationship during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, and
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance, East Hill experienced a
surge in real estate development at the end of 19th century, courtesy of the
growing presence of Cornell University and the resulting demands for new
residential and commercial spaces. Expanded and improved transportation
options also spurred development. The increased urban density, coupled
with the diverse and dangerous range of lighting, heating, and cooking
methods, raised fire insurance concerns among area residents, property
owners, and members of the university community. In 1894, a group
representing these concerned parties organized, with the permission of the
City’s Common Council, and formed the W.H. Sage Fire Company No. 9
(later the Neriton Hose Company No. 9). In support of the new company,
the City equipped it with an existing hose cart and a firehouse facility, the
No. 9 Fire Station, on Dryden Road near the intersection of College Avenue
(then Heustis Street). Through public subscription and a substantial donation
from the university, the company acquired the City’s first chemical fire
engine for this fire station.
Within a decade of its completion in 1895, the wood-framed fire station was
deemed too small to adequately serve the continuously and rapidly
developing area. The building was moved to its current location on College
Avenue in 1905—a process that took significantly longer than scheduled due
to the miscalculation of the weight of the building--and a large, three-story
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, February 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
3
brick and stucco addition was constructed in front of it in 1907-1908,
providing space for an additional fire engine and expanded dormitories.
The presence of this station on East Hill dramatically decreased the amount
of time needed for firefighting personnel to respond to fires and safeguarded
the university’s and private developers’ investments in the area against fire.
East Hill’s steep terrain made it challenging for existing fire companies to
respond to fires on the hill with the necessary water and equipment.
Response times were on average 20-30 minutes, which could be catastrophic
for a neighborhood filled with wood-frame structures. The formation of the
City’s ninth fire company and construction of the No. 9 Fire Station ensured
this area’s continued development. Of approximately thirteen (13) fire
stations constructed in the City during the 19th and early-20th centuries, only
three survive: the No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, No. 5 Fire
Station at 136 West State Street, and No. 7 Fire Station at 1012 North Tioga
Street.
The No. 9 Fire Station was developed through a collaborative relationship
between Cornell University and the City. As noted above, the university was
a driving force behind the formation of the firefighting company and
contributed financially to the outfit of the No. 9 Fire Station. This
collaborative relationship became a characteristic of the operations and
staffing of the No. 9 Fire Station throughout the first-half of the 20th century.
In exchange for room and board, university students staffed the fire station.
Per criterion 4, the former No. 9 Fire Station is the work of a designer whose
work has significantly influenced an age. As noted in the nomination, the fire
station is significant for its close association with three locally prominent architects:
Clinton L. Vivian, Arthur N. Gibb, and Ornan H. Waltz.
The 1894-95 fire station was designed by the architecture firm of Vivian and
Gibb. After working in the office of the William H. Miller, Clinton L. Vivian
and Arthur W. Gibb established their firm in 1892. Although this partnership
was relatively short lived, lasting only eight years, they secured several
important commissions that shaped the character of Ithaca’s built
environment. Their designs for the Cascadilla Boathouse and the main
pavilion complex at Stewart (then Renwick) Park are some of the best
examples of Shingle-Style architecture in the city and continue to define the
character of that section of the Cayuga Lake waterfront. The Shingle Style
elements they successfully implemented in these designs, including integrated
roof-top, bell-shaped towers and classical detailing, were also incorporated into
their donated design for the No. 9 Fire Station.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, February 13, 2018
No. 9 Fire Station
4
The 1907-08 addition to the fire station was designed by the firm of Gibb and
Waltz. After the dissolution of his partnership with Vivian in 1900, Gibb
partnered with Ornan H. Waltz to form the firm of Gibb and Waltz in 1906.
Again, this firm’s works have contributed significantly to the character of
Ithaca’s built environment. Among their notable works were the YMCA
building, Rand Hall on the Cornell University campus, and Ithaca City
Hospital. The firm also designed the Ithaca Masonic Temple (1925), which is
one of only two Egyptian-Revival Style buildings in Ithaca and an excellent
regional example of the style.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the former No. 9 Fire Station meets criteria 1 and 4 defining a
Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks
Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommends the designation of the former No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue, and the adjacent areas identified as tax parcel #64.-10-
18, as a City of Ithaca landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: M. Megan McDonald
In favor: M. Megan McDonald, S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, S. Gibian
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 1
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)
No. 9 Fire Station
311 College Avenue
Tompkins Ithaca
SK 311, LLC 311 College Avenue
Fire Station Restaurant
Vivian & Gibb;Gibb & Waltz 1894-95;1907-08
stucco
see continuation sheet
Katelin Olson 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850
607-274-6555 bmccracken@cityofithaca.org February 13, 2018
PLEASEPROVIDETHEFOLLOWINGINFORMATION
IF YOU ARE PREPARING A NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION, PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS
Narrative Description of Property: Briefly describe the property and its setting. Include a verbal description of the location (e.g., north side of NY 17,
west of Jones Road); a general description of the building, structure or feature including such items as architectural style (if known), number of stories,
type and shape of roof (flat, gabled, mansard, shed or other), materials and landscape features. Identify and describe any associated buildings,
structures or features on the property, such as garages, silos, privies, pools, gravesites. Identify any known exterior and interior alterations such as
additions, replacement windows, aluminum or vinyl siding or changes in plan. Include dates of construction and alteration, if known. Attach additional
sheets as needed.
Narrative Description of Significance: Briefly describe those characteristics by which this property may be considered historically significant.
Significance may include, but is not limited to, a structure being an intact representative of an architectural or engineering type or style (e.g., Gothic
Revival style cottage, Pratt through-truss bridge); association with historic events or broad patterns of local, state or national history (e.g., a cotton mill
from a period of growth in local industry, a seaside cottage representing a locale's history as a resort community, a structure associated with activities of
the "underground railroad."); or by association with persons or organizations significant at a local, state or national level. Simply put, why is this property
important to you and the community. Attach additional sheets as needed.
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency
See continuation sheet
See continuation sheet
Narrative Description of Property:
No. 9 Fire Station, 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The No. 9 Fire Station is a 2-story, Shingle Style wood-frame fire station (1894-95) with a 3-
story, commercial-style, brick- and stucco-clad addition that fronts College Avenue. The
original building is on the eastern, rear portion of the parcel and was designed by Vivian &
Gibb as a civic donation. After this building was moved to its present location in 1905, the
Gibb & Waltz designed addition was constructed in front of the earlier station in 1907-08.
These conjoined structures remain as one of only three historic fire stations extant in
Ithaca and the only example of turn-of-the-20th century civic architecture in the Collegtown
neighborhood.
Located on the east side of College Avenue between Dryden Road and Bool Street, the No. 9
Fire Station at 311 College Avenue is a good example of a turn-of-the-20th century neighborhood
fire station. The three-story, brick- and stucco-clad College Avenue façade is an early-20th
century addition to a late-19th century two-story, wood-frame fire station that remains at the rear
(eastern) portion of the parcel. The building is sited on a relatively small urban lot,
approximately 32’ by 142’, with a characteristically deep setback, which was historically used
for staging and maneuvering firefighting equipment. A modernist, brick and concrete fire station
(1968) sits immediately to the south of the building at 309 College Avenue.1
1 When the new fire station at 309 College Avenue opened on September 7, 1968, it absorbed all of the functions of
the previous building. Subsequently, the City decommissioned the turn-of-the-20th century fire station and sold it at
auction in 1971.
Designed by the firm of Vivian & Gibb and built in 1894-95, the original No. 9 Fire Station is a
two-story wood-framed building with a hipped roof. Only three of the structure’s original
exterior walls are visible, as the 1907-1908 addition was attached directly to the fourth (west)
side, obscuring the entire façade. Novelty board siding clads the first story of the building and
cut wood shingles clad the second The building’s trim is simple and refined, reflecting the
characteristics of the Shingle Style. The base of second-story wall flares slightly where it meets
the wide trim board capping the first story; rafter tails line the open eaves of the hipped roof; and
simple, flat trim boards accent the corners of the first story, and the window and door openings,
which are evenly spaced on all elevations. The north and south elevations have two windows on
the first story and four windows on the second, and the first and second stories of the east
elevation both have a door and a window. Window openings are filled with wood, double-hung
sashes with a one-over-one lite configuration; door openings have been infilled with non-historic
materials. The distinctive cupola that once capped the fire station was removed presumably
when the addition was constructed in 1907-08. A 1905 photograph showing the cupola as well
as the building’s original west façade is appended to this document. Pressed metal shingles now
clad the entire roof.
The symmetrical, two-bay, three-story addition that fronts College Avenue was designed by the
firm of Gibb and Waltz and was constructed in 1907-08. The two upper stories of the main
block are clad in stucco with red brick quoins accenting the corners of the building. Each bay of
the second and third stories contains three, one-over-one, double-hung, wood-sash windows. A
cornice adorned with small brackets denotes the base of the building’s parapet wall, which has
the same cladding and corner detail as the upper stories. A two-bay, brick projection extends
from the first story and contains two fire engine door openings. This projection is capped by a
simple, non-historic railing. A slightly recessed, two-story, brick-clad projection on the north
side of the building contains the original pedestrian entrance to the fire station. The north and
south elevations of the addition are brick-clad and have few window openings. A photograph of
the addition from between 1908 and 1918 is appended to this document. Note the original fire
engine bay doors and wood railing.
Despite its adaptive reuse as a restaurant and years of the deferred maintenance, the No. 9 Fire
Station has not been significantly altered and possesses a high level of material integrity. Non-
historic infill has been added to the historic fire engine door openings: The northern opening has
been filled with a door and window, and the southern bay contains two windows. The wood
siding materials on the 1894-95 fire station exhibits signs of moderate deterioration resulting
from decades of water infiltration and rodent/insect activity.
Narrative Description of Significance
No. 9 Fire Station, 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The No. 9 Fire Station is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a turn-of-
the-20th century neighborhood fire station built in response to pressing fire safety needs on
Ithaca’s East Hill. Although the original firehouse (1894-95) is not visible from College
Avenue and has experienced deterioration due to deferred maintenance, it largely retains
its essential form and is a noteworthy example of an architect-designed Shingle Style civic
building in Ithaca.
The No. 9 Firehouse derives additional significance from its close association with the
growth and development of Cornell University and the Collegetown neighborhood. The
presence of these structures enabled tremendous growth on both the university campus and
the residential and commercial portions of East Hill. Its origin and institutional support
over the late-19th and early-20th centuries reflect a true town-gown partnership.
The No. 9 Fire Station is also significant for its close association with three locally
prominent architects: Clinton L. Vivian, Arthur N. Gibb, and Ornan H. Waltz. Well
known in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, these prominent designers profoundly
shaped the architectural character of the City of Ithaca and other local communities
through their significant and substantial residential, civic, commercial, recreational and
institutional commissions.
Since 1895, the No. 9 Fire Station has played a unique role in life of Collegetown, especially
in its location at 311 College Avenue. It is a physical, social and residential connector
between Cornell University and the mixed-use neighborhood on East Hill. Its myriad of
concurrent uses - as a student dormitory, a social hall, a family home, an epicenter of first-
responder services, and ultimately an iconic Ithaca restaurant in its post-civic life - speak to
its deep historical significance in Ithaca’s urban development.
_________
Ithaca Fire Company History
In the 1800s, fire safety largely relied on the time and talents of volunteers, and companies were
formed to solve particular geographic or functional problems associated with fire management.
Ithaca’s first fire company was formed in 1823, followed by a second in 1828. When the hand
pump arrived for the newest company, it was so superior to the first company’s pump that the
most seasoned group lobbied village leaders to have it for themselves. Since it already had
“Rescue Company Two” painted on its side, the oldest group thereafter became known as No. 2,
and the second company formed became No. 1.2
Fire companies needed buildings to store their equipment, and the first building of this type was
a shed constructed near 409 North Tioga Street (not extant) c. 1823. The formation of a second
fire company and the purchase of accompanying equipment necessitated more space. Company
No. 2 (Rescue Steamer Co.) relocated into a new building located at 115 South Tioga Street (not
extant) c. 1828, and Company No. 1 (Cayuga Steamer Co.) moved into the newly vacant shed.3
2 Bob Robinson, Ithaca Fire Department (date unknown): 4, accessed January 16, 2018 <
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/5042>.
3 Robinson, 4.
Chimney and roof fires proved to be especially difficult for the fire companies to handle. In
February 1831, local businessmen organized to purchase a truck with ladders long enough to
reach beyond one story, and thus Company No. 3 (Tornado Hook and Ladder Co.) was formed.
The new company joined Company No. 2 at the South Tioga Street building. In 1838, Ithaca
appointed its first, unpaid fire chief.4
Company No. 4 (Eureka Hose Co.) formed in 1841 and moved into the North Tioga Street shed,
about four blocks away from the South Tioga building. Village officials were unhappy with this
arrangement, deciding that Ithaca’s size necessitated the consolidation of the fire companies
under a single roof in order to improve communication and coordination. Construction began on
Fireman’s Hall on the northeast corner of Tioga and Seneca Streets (currently the Seneca Street
parking garage) c. 1845. In the meantime, a fifth fire company (Torrent Hose Co.) had been
established to be responsible for brigades, and a wagon with 100-bucket hooks was subsequently
commissioned. With the Fireman’s Hall already under construction and insufficient in size to
house the new bucket truck, the Village purchased a parcel at 308 East Seneca for a station and
tower.5
By 1853, the western portions of the Ithaca had grown sufficiently for area businessmen to have
their own company. The village’s sixth company, Hercules Engine Company, was formed and a
building constructed at State and Fulton Streets. (Not extant.) The seventh company (Cataract
Co.) was organized on December 31, 1863 at the north end of the village. For two years they
stored their equipment in a small station on Lake Street across from the Lincoln Street
intersection, but soon moved into a new station at 207 Queen Street. (Not extant.)
By 1868, fire management necessitated a team capable of stretching ropes and managing the
crowds of people who would gather to watch the firemen battle a blaze. Company No. 8
(Protective Police) was formed for this explicit purpose, and appears to have moved into
Firemen’s Hall. Over the next century, Ithaca constructed additional buildings to house their fire
companies. These include an engine house to the east of St. John’s Episcopal c. 1871 for
Companies No. 1 and 2, around the same time that Company No. 6 was reorganized as the
Sprague Steamer Company and installed in a building on West State Street near the current
station. (Not extant.) By 1882, Company No. 5 had outgrown the East Seneca Street location,
so the village hired Alvah B. (Buckbee) Wood, a locally prominent architect,6 to design a new
station at 136 West State Street (extant). Finally, after a fire burned down their headquarters on
Queen Street, Company No. 7 moved into a new station, again, designed by A.B. Wood at 1012
North Tioga Street (extant) in 1885.7
4 Robinson, 5.
5 Robinson, 6-7.
6 Kurtz, D. Morris. Ithaca and Its Resources. (Ithaca, NY: Journal Association Book and Job Print, 1883) 85. A.B.
Wood designed several residences in Ithaca, the Ithaca High School, and some of the buildings in the Morse Chain
Works complex. He also designed Lehigh Valley Railroad depots in Ithaca (1898), Geneva (1892) and Wilkes-
Barre, Pennsylvania. He is also credited with the design of the 1896 Immaculate Conception Church in Ithaca.
7 Robinson, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20.
The Formation of Fire Company No. 9
As the 19th century drew to a close, Ithaca’s East Hill experienced a surge in real estate
development, courtesy of the growing presence of Cornell University and the resulting demands
for new residential and commercial space. Furthermore, Ithaca had obtained a new charter as a
City in 1888, and moved its municipal boundary up East Hill from Eddy Street. Street railway
service began up East State and Eddy Streets in 1893, serving the university and the adjacent
neighborhood. The increased urban density, coupled with a diverse and dangerous range of
lighting, heating and cooking methods, raised fire insurance concerns among the expanding
population. East Hill’s steep terrain made it challenging for the existing fire companies to
respond with the necessary water and equipment. For a neighborhood disproportionally filled
with wood-frame structures, the average 20-30 minute response time could be catastrophic for
the entire developing area. Neighborhood residents, in the vicinity of the region now known as
Collegetown, and Cornell University officials intensified calls for the construction of a new fire
station on East Hill and improvements to municipal water pressure and volume. 8 These calls
were summarized in a letter form Henry W. Sage to the Ithaca Journal in 1889, in which he
stated:
East Hill, which is increasing in population and residence property faster than
any other part of the city, should have a fire engine with suitable house for it and
needful equipment for efficient dealing with fire. That part of the city is
positively helpless in the event of fire, and neglect to provide for such
contingency is not unwise only, it is criminal.9
The Cornell community played a significant role in the establishment of the No. 9 firehouse,
reflecting university leaders’ concerns that the city was incapable of adequately protecting the
campus or Collegetown in the event of a sizable conflagration. In August 1894, around 100
residents, businessmen and Cornell faculty members gathered to discuss the establishment of a
new fire company. They lobbied Mayor Clinton D. Bouton and the Aldermen accordingly, and
the local officials took heed.10 On September 19, 1894, the W.H. Sage Fire Company No. 9
officially formed and soon forty-seven men pledged their services to fight fires in Collegetown.
They organized with the permission of the Common Council, who approved the public provision
of an existing hose cart and appropriate firehouse facilities.11 Volunteer subscriptions among
members of the Cornell community and the residents of East Hill raised $987, enabling the
8 Mary Raddant Tomlan, “Firehouse speaks of East Hill change,” The Ithaca Journal (September 18, 2004): 1B,
2B; Charley Githler, “A look back at…before The Nines,” Tompkins Weekly (October 2, 2017), accessed November
17, 2017 < http://tompkinsweekly.com/news/2017/10/02/look-back-nines/>.
9 Ithaca Daily Journal, Mar. 7, 1895.
10 Robinson, 24-25.
11 Tomlan; David Allen Rash, The Works of Clinton L. Vivian, Architect, of Ithaca, I, thesis (Cornell University:
2014): 274.
nascent company to purchase a Holloway Chemical Engine for approximately $1,200 in 1895, of
which Cornell paid $600.12 This was Ithaca’s first chemical fire engine.13
When Fire Company No. 9 organized in 1894, it was named after William H. Sage, an Ithaca
resident and an important trustee and benefactor of Cornell University.14 However, after only a
year of operating as the W.H. Sage Fire Company No. 9, William H. Sage requested that the
company change its name. In response, Company Treasurer B.I. Wheeler, a Cornell professor of
classics, recommended Neriton, inspired by a famous forest in Homer’s Odyssey.15 The new
name officially established was the Neriton Hose Company.16 In addition to deriving its original
name from the Sage family, the construction of the fire station facility was financed through a
loan of approximately $1,500 from Henry W. Sage, William H. Sage’s father, city resident, and
important university benefactor.17 The loan represents a long-term commitment by H.W. Sage to
address fire safety concerns on East Hill, an issue he highlighted in his 1889 letter to the Ithaca
Daily Journal and championed from his position on the Cornell Board of Trustees.
Firehouse No. 9
The Neriton Hose Company No. 9 was originally housed in a modest, wood-frame station
designed by the firm of Vivian & Gibb, a donation to the City of Ithaca. Although their
partnership was short lived, Clinton L. Vivian and Arthur N. Gibb became regionally well-
known and received several prominent commissions, including the Cascadilla Boathouse, the
main pavilion complex at Stewart (then Renwick) Park, and the Charles E. Treman House.18
Vivian arrived in Ithaca in 1882 to apprentice with William H. Miller, Ithaca’s most famous
architect, and would go on to have a notable career nearly up to his death in 1930. His body of
work reflected an interest in interpreting modern architectural forms though a lens that was
sympathetic to America’s colonial heritage.19
After a decade of service, Vivian left Miller’s practice around May 1892 to begin his own in
partnership with Arthur W. Gibb, another former Miller employee and an 1890 graduate of
Cornell University’s architecture program.20 Gibb practiced architecture in Ithaca for nearly 60
years, both in partnerships (notably with Vivian and Ornan H. Waltz) and solely, and also served
as an alderman and mayor. He was responsible, either in partnership or as sole architect, for the
design of three of Ithaca's four significant fraternal organization buildings: the Elks Club, the
12 Pete Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” The Ithaca Journal (March 1, 1971): 18; Robinson, 24-25. The exact cost
of the chemical fire engine is disputed in the records: some list it at $1,100 and others at $1,200.
13 Tomlan; Robinson, 24-25.
14 For information on the significant contributions of William H. Sage to Cornell University and the City of Ithaca,
see “William H. Sage Dies,” Cornell Alumni News XXVII, no. 6 (October 30, 1924): 73. For information on Henry W.
Sage and his contributions to the university and city, see
15 Notes on a postscript to an article published in the September 18, 2004 Ithaca Journal, found in research
compilation available through the City of Ithaca.
16 Pete Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” (March 1, 1971).
17 Ithaca Daily Journal, Feb.6 and Mar. 6, 1895.
18 “National Register of Historic Places: Cascadilla Boathouse, Ithaca, NY”: Section 8, page 11.
19 Rash, lxii.
20 Rash, 117.
Eagles Building and the Masonic Temple, as well as for the Odd Fellows Home and Orphanage
in the Town of Ithaca. Gibb (1899) and Vivian (1900) were the first two Ithacan architects to
join the American Institute of Architects.21 Their partnership lasted from 1892 to 1900,
dissolving while the two were working on the Charles E. Treman house.22 Afterwards, Vivian
would go on to design his most acclaimed residential design, the Roger B. Williams House at
306 N. Cayuga Street, an excellent example of the American Renaissance Style in Ithaca.
Vivian & Gibb’s design for No. 9 Fire Station incorporated many of the characteristics found in
their early collaborative designs, including Shingle Style detailing and integrated bell-shaped,
roof-top tower. The first story was clad in novelty board siding and the second in wood shingle.
Roman Doric pilasters were installed at the corners of the building and used to frame the engine
bay doors.23
The firm’s donation of the plans for No. 9 Fire Station likely stemmed from Vivian’s deep ties to
the local volunteer fire community. In addition to providing vital civic services, such groups
served as important fraternal organizations for cultivating both professional and personal
relationships. A few years into his Ithaca residency, Vivian joined the Tornado Hook and
Ladder Co. No. 3 in 1886 and remained an active member until his retirement in 1902, serving in
a number of important leadership positions that culminated with the title of Director (1901-02).
Such an affiliation extended far beyond smoking and playing cards, although these were
quintessential fire company activities. More importantly, Vivian acquired many of his clients
from within the Tornado Hook and Ladder Co., and as architectural historian David Allen Rash
persuasively argues, Vivian’s link to the fire community was influential in his “locally
pioneering interest in fire-resistant construction techniques.”24 These, however, were not present
in the modest, wood-frame and wood-clad fire station on East Hill.
On October 22, 1894, Mayor Bouton, acting for the City, signed an agreement with William
Murray to lease property on the south side of Dryden Road a short distance west of Huestis
Street (renamed College Avenue in 1908), measuring twenty-five by seventy feet, with the
privilege of buying the parcel at any time during the ensuing five years. Included in the
agreement was an eight-foot-wide right-of-way to the rear of the site from Huestis Street. Bids
for the construction of the station were called for and awarded in November, with contractor
Arthur Merrill completing the Vivian & Gibb scheme in early 1895. Murray sold the property to
Edwin C. Stewart in 1896 with the same City agreements in place, and in June 1897 the City
purchased the site as its own. 25
21 Rash, 14.
22 Carol Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds. Ithaca's Neighborhoods: the Rhine, the Hill, and
the Goose Pasture (Ithaca, NY: De Witt Historical Society, 1988).
23 Tomlan; Rash, 276.
24 Rash, 9-10.
25 For the lease of the site, see Tompkins County Deeds, Book 141, p. 640; Ithaca Daily Journal, Oct. 23,
1894. For the street name, see Carol Kammen, ed., Place Names of Tompkins County (Ithaca, NY: Office
of the Tompkins County Historian, 2004), 65. For the construction of the station, see Ithaca Daily
Journal, Nov. 16 and Nov. 28, 1894; Cornell Daily Sun, Jan. 19, 1895; Ithaca Daily Journal, Mar. 7,
Given the growth of the university and, consequently, of the residential and commercial
neighborhood to the south, the need for improved fire protection became increasingly evident. In
July 1904, John J. Gainey, the owner of a substantial brick commercial-residential block at the
corner of Huestis Street and Dryden Road, immediately to the east of the Neriton Company’s fire
station, presented City officials with an offer that would provide a site capable of
accommodating additional fire-fighting apparatus. Gainey had purchased a vacant parcel on the
opposite or east side of Huestis Street on July 6, and within a few days proposed to trade a
portion of that site to the City in exchange for its current site, while paying to have the frame
firehouse moved to the new location. In May 1905, the deed was executed for the City to
acquire a parcel thirty-two feet wide and nearly twice as deep as the existing station site, with an
eight-foot right-of-way to the north on a portion of Gainey’s remaining land.
The No. 9 Fire Station was moved off its foundation in July 1905. Inaccuracies in the calculation
of the building’s weight and mechanical failures with the moving equipment resulted in a 3-week
delay, during which part of the building straddled the adjoining sidewalk. When it was finally
installed at 311 Huestis, it was placed at the rear of the lot, as the city and Commissioners of the
Ithaca Fire Department intended the building to ultimately be replaced with a larger structure. In
its 1905 annual report, the Commissioners “strongly urg[ed] that a brick building be erected on
said lot in addition to the small building now there, and that additional fire apparatus be secured
at the earliest moment possible.”26 On January 1, 1906, the Common Council’s Committee of
Public Buildings reported that “the new location [will be] providing adequate room for an
additional structure and the ultimate extension and improvement of the department in that
locality.”27
Budgetary limitations dimmed the prospects for a complete new building, so a brick and stucco
addition was connected to the wooden Vivian & Gibb design. The city hired architects Arthur N.
Gibb and Ornan H. Waltz of Gibb & Waltz. Ornan Waltz came to Ithaca from Elmira in 1901 to
work in William H. Miller's office. The firm of Gibb & Waltz was formed in 1906 and dissolved
in 1926. Among their other notable designs were the YMCA Building, Rand Hall on the Cornell
University campus, the Ithaca City Hospital, and the Ithaca Masonic Temple.28
The new addition, constructed in 1907-08 of fire-resistant materials, resulted in the original
building “being related to a subordinate role behind the new No. 9 firehouse, a role it still plays
at the rear of The Nines on College Avenue.”29 (Around 1908, the Roman Doric pilasters and
1895; Rash, 276; Tomlan. For the 1896 and 1897 property transfers, see Tompkins County Deeds, Book
146, p. 399, and Book 149, p.330.
26 For Gainey’s offer, see Ithaca Daily Journal, July 12 and Aug. 9, 1904. For purchase of the Huestis Street parcel
from Mary Anne Snaith, see Tompkins County Deeds, Book 161, p. 323. This property, identified in the deed as
313 Huestis Street, had been vacant since a January 1900 fire destroyed the Delta Chi fraternity house on the site;
Cornell Daily Sun, Jan. 29, 1900. Robinson, 24-25; Fifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of the Ithaca Fire
Department for the Year Ending December 15, 1905 (Ithaca, NY: 1905): 6.
27 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
28 Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, “Memorandum: Proposed Redeve lopment of the Old No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue,” Division of Planning and Economic Development (August 15, 2017).
29 Robinson, 24-25; Tomlan.
cupola of the original building were removed or covered.30) The renovated station, which cost
approximately $4,700, was officially opened for use on April 16, 1908. A decade later, the
horse-drawn ladder truck was converted into a motor-powered vehicle, thereby substantially
changing the use of the property and negating the need for maintaining equine facilities. 31
Cornellians were an important part of the No. 9 volunteer fire crew, and students appear to have
begun rooming in the No. 9 Fire Station’s dormitories soon after its remodeling. In 1970, Fire
Chief Charles M. Weaver was interviewed about his family’s connection to No. 9, and he relayed
that his father came to Ithaca around 1908 to attend Cornell University and bunked at the fire
station. Chief Weaver continued the tradition, moving into the dormitories in 1936 as a Cornell
freshman. “Two or three things I learned there, perhaps not very well, were to play poker and
shoot pool…I remember one of the students’ jobs was to carry out the coal ashes once a week.”
Chief Weaver credited this living arrangement to his exposure to firefighting as a profession.32
At the time, the fire station served as a type of “community center,” with a number of social
events, many of which were designed to raise money for the station. “Back then the fire
companies got nothing from the city and they used to have turkey raffles and the like to raise
money,” Chief Weaver noted. It also served as a polling place, a tradition that continues in many
communities today, as well as a venue for well-known weekly poker games that attracted several
prominent East Hill merchants.33
The apparatus rooms that stored the firefighting equipment were located on the ground floor,
with dormitories and common space on the second floor. From around 1916 to 1950, the third
floor apartment was occupied by Ned Witter, who was responsible for driving the horses and
then, often, the trucks. (In the days before motorized engines, the horses were used during the
day to haul garbage.) Witter lived in the building with his family, and one of his daughters was
even born there. A fireman’s pole connected his apartment to the second floor, and a second
pole connected the second floor to the apparatus room on the 1st floor.34
Decommissioned Station and Adaptive Reuse
As part of an effort to modernize and improve the City’s firefighting facilities, a modernist, brick
and concrete fire station was constructed at 309 College Avenue to replace the functionally
inefficient one at 311 College Avenue in 1968. Located next door to the older No. 9 Fire
Station, the new building absorbed all of the functions of the previous building and reflected a
physical transition from volunteer fire fighting to a more professional field. The old fire station
was stripped of its heating and plumbing apparatuses and was sold at auction by the Ithaca
Common Council in 1971.35 Twelve people attended the auction, where a minimum bid of
$40,000 was set. Big Flats attorney Walter Zebrowski bid $40,000 on behalf of Michael
30 Rash, 276.
31 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
32 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
33 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
34 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
35 Walsh, “Old No. 9s Up for Sale,” March 1, 1971.
Turback and a group of unspecified investors. With no other bids offered, the investment team
acquired it for that price.36
In August 1972, Turback, a Cornellian, opened a restaurant, the Old No. 9, decorated in a turn-
of-the-century fire station motif.37 In 1980, Mark Kielmann and Harold Schultz acquired the
property and opened The Nines, a popular restaurant known for its signature deep-dish pizza, in
the engine room of the 1908 brick and stucco addition.38 The original 1895 wood-frame fire
station is used for storage.
36 Pete Walsh, “Turback buys old No. 9s,” Ithaca Journal (March 2, 1971): 3.
37 Linda Corwin, “’Old No. 9’ becomes restaurant,” Ithaca Journal (August 3, 1972), located in Scrapbook S147a,
pg. 74. (The History Center in Tompkins County)
38 Sarah Mearhoff, “The Nines faces demolition under Collegetown apartment proposal,” Ithaca Journal (September
11, 2017), accessed December 16, 2017 <http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2017/09/11/nines-faces-
demolition-under-collegetown-apartment-proposal/653464001/>.
Fig 1: Vivian and Gibb designed 1894-95 No. 9Fire Station, 1905.
(The History Century in Tompkins County)
Fig. 2: Gibb and Waltz designed 1907-08 addition, between 1908 and 1918.
(The History Center in Tompkins County)
________________________________________
From: Jean [jmsappell@clarityconnect.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 12:44 AM
To: Bryan McCracken
Subject: 311 College Ave
I wholeheartedly disagree with the current push to landmark this building.. I have worked in this building for 38
years and am arguably more familiar with it than anyone in town. I do not understand how the City is moving
forward with this process at this late date. In the past 38 years no one has cared anything about it. There has been
extensive discussion about changing Collegetown in the past decade which involved completely changing the
character of the neighborhood and in all that time, no one said word one about the sanctity of this building until
the sale was almost complete.
I can tell you from firsthand experience that the building has so many problems with the structure that it cannot be
sold as is to anyone for continued operation without prohibitively expensive repairs, including to the foundation.
By starting the land marking process, the City has created a white elephant. The building has been offered for sale
for decades and no serious offers were put forth. For four decades, the City did not have any interest and neither
did any investors. The simple fact is that no one wants to buy the building as is.
When the City accepted the redevelopment plan there was no mention of this allegedly precious resource; in fact,
it was conspicuous in its absence, especially as other buildings were acknowledged in the reports. The City was
quite firm in its commitment to reshaping Collegetown and created an economic decision about what was most
valuable. The property’s owners made their own decisions based on the City’s actions and their decision to sell for
redevelopment as so many others have done was the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn given the current
economic realities.
Land marking this decrepit structure that nobody wants makes no sense and does considerable harm to the
property’s owners. There are other contemporary fire houses that are not land marked. This one is not unique.
There is nothing at all outstanding about the remains of the original structure. It is a square box that has been
remodeled to remove any unique character almost a hundred years ago—and nobody made a fuss then either.
It is hard not to feel that this whole thing has arisen in a bad case of buyers’ remorse about the Collegetown
redevelopment plan. After stripping the neighborhood of all character and eliminating all public spaces somebody
decided to make one desperate last grab at preserving something with a little personality. Unfortunately for the
City, the only thing special there is the Nines Restaurant and that has been operating all these years in spite of the
problems inherent in the building. It is the business not the building. It is unconscionable for the City to have
created economic expectations for at least ten years and then single this building out and destroying the value that
was reasonably expected.
As I stated, I have worked in this building since 1980. I have spent countless hours working in the kitchen with
Mark Kielmann and cannot imagine anyone who has worked harder for more years to run a modestly successful
business in the city. These owners have provided hundreds of jobs with above average wages and above average
benefits. Many of the employees have worked there for years in an industry famous for high turnover. They have
done nothing but contribute positively to the area. It feels incredibly unfair to pull the retirement rug out from
under them after leading them to believe, as any reasonable person would, that they could sell their building for
redevelopment.
A building is not like a pet racehorse that can be retired to a sanctuary because it feels wrong to send it to the
knackers. This is a business decision and should be treated as such. The City should not sacrifice 90% of the future
tax revenue generated by the proposed development to save for sentimental reasons a building that no one wants
to buy as is. The description of the historical significance is not sufficiently unique to landmark this building. Any
history there has been gone for a very long time and no one has felt moved to preserve this for at least 40 years.
The City is obviously short of tax revenue and saving a pet building does not merit foregoing the projected revenue
that redevelopment would provide. For example, I suspect that if the tax money were to be used to repave the
streets, people would show up with sledgehammers in hand to 311 College Avenue tomorrow.
That land marking this building would also be stealing the retirement funding that the owners had been led to
believe they had invested in is a spectacular act of injustice. Considering the image that Ithaca has tried to project
for itself this turn of events is particularly disturbing. This treatment is unfair and unjust by any standard. Gifting a
white elephant was rightly considered a curse. Land marking this building that nobody wants because of the
economic realities would be the height of folly and would be cursing the owners by stealing their retirement funds.
It would be a most unjust treatment of two people who have devoted a lifetime to providing good jobs and a
popular service for the community.
Sincerely,
Jean Sappell
# 9 Fire Station
Ann Bowlsy [annieiac725@yahoo.com]
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 6:03 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
I support making the No. 9 Fire Station located at 311 College Ave a historic landmark.
This building is an icon of college town and Ithaca itself.
Ann M Bowlsby
607-327-0357
Sent from my iPhone
# 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:54 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Ashim K. Datta [akd1@cornell.edu]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:54 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
I support everything related to the preservaon of “N o. 9 Fire Staon” at 311 College Avenue.
Ashim K. Daa
Professor, Cornell University, Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853
Email: akd1@cornell.edu; Phone: (607)255-2482
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:52 AM
311 College Avenue
Barbara Van Dyk [barbarasvandyk@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:57 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Bryan McCracken
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Ithaca
Dear Mr McCracken,
Please protect the firehouse building at 311 College Avenue by giving it an individual historic landmark
designation at the forthcoming meeting.
We cannot afford to lose the remaining buildings of historic (and aesthetic) importance.
Yours, Barbara Van Dyk
Garrett Road, Ithaca
311 College Avenue https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 11:05 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Cally Arthur [caa9@cornell.edu]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:48 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Cc:Historic Ithaca [sholland@historicithaca.org]
Dear Bryan McCracken,
I am in favor of the nominaon to designate the old Number 9 Fire Staon at 311 College Avenue as an
Ithaca Landmark to be preserved.
The building reflects the hey-day of Collegetown a century ago. Its architecture as well as what it represents
in the development of Ithaca and Cornell relaonship is well worth saving.
In view of inevitable and necessary re-development in Collegetown, it is crical that we preserve some
islands of historical and social significance.
Regards,
Cally Arthur
----
Cally Arthur
114 West Lincoln Street
Ithaca NY 14850
607 227 7983
caa9@cornell.edu
skype: callyarthur
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:50 AM
nomination for individual landmark status
Dave Rochelle [dave@rochellemediaworks.com]
Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 10:01 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Hello Bryan -
I would like to nominate the No. 9 Fire Station building at 311 College Avenue in Ithaca - to be designated as
an individual landmark by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Thank you,
Dave Rochelle
nomination for individual landmark status https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:53 AM
support no.9 fire station
dawncramton@twcny.rr.com
Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:06 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Dear City of Ithaca,
I am with all the citizens of Ithaca when I support the preservation
of no.9 fire Station at 311 College Ave.
This historical building deserves respect and admiration. The Ithaca community
would like to give this building a official historical designation.
It is so important for our community!
Thank you,
Dawn Cramton
support no.9 fire station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 11:02 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Elissa Cogan [egc@coganenterprises.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:11 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Bryan,
I write in support of the nomination of this building at 311 College Avenue as an individual historic landmark. I
reiterate the reasons many have already mentioned:
• It is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a turn-of-the-20th century neighborhood fire station built
in response to pressing fire safety needs on Ithaca’s East Hill.
• It is closely associated with the growth and development of Cornell University and the Collegetown neighborhood. Its
origin and institutional support over the late-19th and early-20th centuries reflect a true town-gown relationship. It
stands as an important built resource pointing to that significant history.
• It is significant for its close association with three locally prominent architects. Clinton L. Vivian and Arthur N. Gibb
designed the original portion of the firehouse (now at the rear), and Gibb and Ornan H. Waltz designed the three-story
brick and stucco addition on the front that is visible from College Avenue. These three architects worked on a large
number of buildings throughout the city of Ithaca and shaped its built environment in lasting ways.
• The No. 9 Fire Station served as a physical, social, and residential connector between Cornell University and the
mixed-use neighborhood on East Hill. Its presence and original use are directly tied to the growth of Cornell University
and Collegetown.
I hope the Commission will see fit to preserve this building.
Thank you,
--Elissa Cogan (313 East Buffalo Street)
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:53 AM
Historic Designation of the old fire station
Ellen McCollister [ellen.mccollister@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:50 PM
To:Donna Fleming [df39@cornell.edu]; rgearhart@ithaca.edu
Cc:gamcgonigal@gmail.com; Graham Kerslick; Joseph Murtagh; Cynthia Brock; Ducson Nguyen; Stephen Smith; Bryan McCracken; Deb
Mohlenhoff; Laura Lewis
Dear Common Council,
I just read through the voluminous historical background materials prepared for the Feb
13 ILPC meeting regarding historic designation of the old No 9 fire station.
As a nearby Bryant Park resident who has witnessed Collegetown dramatically change in
the last 35 years (not always for the better), and as a former Council member who was
deeply involved in the 2014 Collegetown rezoning, I hope you will support designation of
this individual local landmark.
The fire station contributes a rich and important legacy to the Collegetown built
environment, not only due to the significant architects who were involved in its siting
and development, but also because of its importance to both Cornell’s and the Ithaca
Fire Department’s history and development.
As Collegetown continues to densify and develop, we need to retain architectural merits
of our history now more than ever. The designation of the fire station would add to a
small but important inventory of Collegetown landmarks, including the Snaith House,
Grandview, and the Larkin Building.
Sincerely,
Ellen McCollister
ellen.mccollister@gmail.com
607.351.2598
Sent from my iPhone
Historic Designation of the old fire station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:49 AM
No. 9 Fire House
Heather Lambert [hlambert.porter@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 7:41 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
I am an Ithaca resident and native. I believe that the No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Ave. has significant
historical value and should remain intact as a historical landmark. The the fabric of Collegetown needs some
older buildings to keep the feeling of a network of different aged buildings. Like a city not a development.
Good Luck.
Heather Lambert
No. 9 Fire House https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:57 AM
212 Center St. Ithaca, NY HistoricIthaca.org (607) 273-6633
January 31, 2018
Bryan McCracken and Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street 3rd Floor
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Individual Landmark Nomination for the No. 9 Fire Station/311 College Avenue
Dear Bryan and ILPC members:
Historic Ithaca strongly supports the proposed individual landmark designation of the historic No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue. This building meets the criteria for individual designation as a locally
significant building for several reasons. It is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a
historic neighborhood fire station built in response to urgent fire safety needs on Ithaca's East Hill. The
No. 9 Fire Station is also closely associated with the growth and development of Cornell University and
the Collegetown neighborhood. Its origin and institutional support over the late-19th and early-20th
centuries reflect a true town-gown relationship and it stands as an important built resource pointing to
that significant history. The two phases of the building’s construction are significant for its close
association with three locally prominent architects. Clinton L. Vivian and Arthur N. Gibb designed the
original 1894-95 portion of the fire house (now at the rear) and Gibb and Ornan H. Waltz designed the
three-story brick and stucco 1907-08 addition that is visible from College Avenue. These three architects
worked on a large number of buildings throughout the city of Ithaca and shaped its built environment in
lasting ways.
The No. 9 Fire Station served as a physical, social and residential connector between Cornell University
and the mixed-use neighborhood on East Hill. Its presence and original use is directly tied to the growth
of Cornell University and Collegetown. In the recent past, the building was identified as an
architecturally and historically significant landmark in several reports, including “Collegetown Historic
Resources Worthy of Detailed Research” completed on June 14, 2009, by Mary Tomlan and John
Schroeder.
We urge ILPC members to vote in favor of this designation and recognize this building as a significant
cultural resource for Collegetown and the city of Ithaca.
Sincerely,
Susan Holland
Executive Director
No. 9 Fire Station
Kenneth Burkhart [bb1913@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:48 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Dear Mr. McCracken,
I am writing in support of the nomination of No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue for the Historic
Designation of this architecturally significant and historically important building. The building stands today
as a symbol of the intricately woven history of Cornell Collegetown and the East Hill Community.
Additionally, it is a significant reminder of firefighting history of the City of Ithaca. In an area already high
in population density, this historic building best serves the importance of human scale and pleasurable
activity for this location.
Thank you for your consideration on this important designation.
Kind Regards,
Kenneth C. Burkhart
98 Hickory Circle
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-319-0187
bb1913@gmail.com
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:51 AM
In support of the Nines building preservation
Kevin Dossinger [kevin@zirkadesign.com]
Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 10:21 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of doing whatever is necessary to save the Nines building. There are two factors at
play here. First, the building itself deserves to be preserved. How is a firehouse from the 1800's not on the
historic register? How did this slip through the cracks? This is exactly the type of building that should be
preserved for future generations. If the Nines business can't be saved, at the very least this building must be
protected. The character of Collegetown is being ripped apart, and once these building are gone they are gone
forever. Collegetown is turning into one giant apartment building. Not to mention almost all the new
buildings are being designed by the same person. If there needs to be more housing, at least renovate the
upper floors of the building instead of demolishing it and rebuilding from scratch. The Mayers building was
saved. Let's think about this a little.
When it comes to the Nines, it's hard to fault the owners for trying to cash in for their retirement. That is fine,
they earned it, except they are forgetting about the community that supported them all these years. When the
owners of Shortstop Deli wanted to retire they sold the business to an employee who kept it going. They
could have sold the land to yet another developer who would put up an apartment building or garage and
made much more money, but they wanted the tradition and legacy of Shortstop to live on. The Nines owners
don't seem to care. It's just a cash-out for them, city and building and history be damned. That doesn't feel
right.
I realize the city can’t dictate what people do with their businesses, but at the very least it can step in to help
preserve Ithaca’s rich architectural history, which is quickly being erased.
In support of the Nines building preservation https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:59 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Lindsey Bryant [lindsey.bryant@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:41 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
Hi Bryan,
I am sending this email to voice my concern over the potential threat of losing the No.
9 Fire Station at the location of 311 College Avenue. Ithaca cannot afford to continue
to lose these historic buildings that maintain the character of this wonderful City. I
have been an Ithaca resident for twenty six years and would love to see this building
thrive. Thank you for your time!
Lindsey Bryant
Sent from my iPhone
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:56 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Lisa Swayze [lswayze1962@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:50 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
I’m writing in support of historic designation for this cornell and Ithaca landmark
building. This building feels especially important for where it is amid so much
development of new buildings on and around College Ave. It is also an attractive and
interesting architectural example and shows a unique slice of community history. Thank
you for your consideration.
Lisa Swayze
Sent from my iPhone
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:57 AM
concerning 311 College Ave.
Nancy Brcak [brcak@zoom-dsl.com]
Sent:Monday, January 29, 2018 2:14 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
Bryan,
Below is my letter of support:
January 29. 2018
Bryan McCracken
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Ithaca
Dear Bryan,
I was pleased to learn that an individual landmark nomination for 311 College Avenue
will be on the agenda for the February ILPC meeting. I enthusiastically support the
proposal for its designation as an Ithaca landmark.
As an architectural historian, I see the importance of this building clearly. First, it
has connections to important local architects, including Clinton Vivian and Arthur Gibb
(its original designers) and Gibb and Ornan Waltz (as the principal contributors to its
expansion). Further, it is, as we say in my discipline, an “architecturally significant,
intact sample” of turn-of-the-century architecture; it is also a fine example of an
important building type, the fire station. This particular building played a crucial
role in the safety of its neighborhood of Collegetown (a place that, to my mind, is
being unappealingly transformed through massive development). As well, there are
important historical and cultural links between 311 College Avenue and its giant East
Hill neighbor, but I leave it to Cornellians with greater knowledge of this relationship
to articulate these connections.
I understand that a private developer wishes to demolish this building for no better
reason than to maximize his profits. Must we lose the character – the individuality – of
our city because profits and/or private interests come first? Is this really
“progress”? Please don’t condemn yet another Ithaca gem to a landfill. The facts of
the case before you are clear, I think. I urge the Landmarks Commission to designate
311 College Avenue as a historic landmark.
Thank you,
Nancy Brcak
Professor of Art History
Ithaca College
concerning 311 College Ave.https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 11:03 AM
Johnson-Schmidt, Architect, P.C.
15 E. Market St., # 202
Corning, NY 14830
607.937.1946 (T)
607.937.6137 (F)
www.preservationarchitects.com
Johnson-Schmidt, Architect, P.C. 15 East Market Street Corning, New York 14830 607-937-1946
February 8, 2018
Bryan McCracken
Historic Preservation Planner
Ithaca City Hall
108 East Green Street, 3rd Floor
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: No. 9 Fire Station Individual Landmark Nomination
Dear Mr. McCracken,
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed individual landmark nomination for the No. 9 Fire
Station located at 311 College Avenue in Ithaca. As an alumna of Cornell University who specializes
in preservation architecture, I have a particular connection to this building. This is a significant
historic structure that deserves to be listed.
The No. 9 Fire Station is a fine example of a firehouse dating to the turn of the 20th century, and has a
long history serving the Collegetown neighborhood. Originally organized in response to a need for
firefighting services among the student boarding houses, the relative safety resulting from presence
of the No. 9 Fire Station facilitated the growth of Cornell University.
In addition to community significance, the No. 9 Fire Station exemplifies the work of three
prominent local architecture firms. The original firehouse to the rear of the property was designed by
Clinton L. Vivian and Arthur N. Gibb, while the three-story addition at the front was designed by
Gibb and Ornan H. Waltz. Together these architects are responsible for shaping much of the City of
Ithaca, and it is important to preserve examples of their work.
I fully support the nomination of the No. 9 Fire Station for individual landmark status, and hope that
this action will save the firehouse from demolition.
Sincerely yours,
Elise Johnson-Schmidt, AIA
Principal Architect
No 9 Fire Station Historic Designation
Pamela Kingsbury [pjk@kingsburyarch.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:06 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Hi Brian,
Knowing the history of No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, and recognizing its architectural character and
presence in Collegetown, I feel strongly the building should be designated a historic landmark, and its place in the
Collegetown neighborhood preserved.
Thanks,
Pam K.
Pamela J. Kingsbury AIA ASID
pjk@kingsburyarch.com
Kingsbury Architecture LLC
106 E. Court St., Ithaca, NY 14850-4272
phone: 607-273-1477 fax: 607-273-1233 web: kingsburyarch.com
No 9 Fire Station Historic Designation https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:51 AM
Historic Designation for No.9 Fire Station, 311 College Avenue
Sally Grubb [sally.grubb@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:57 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
I would like to add my full support for the Historic Designation of No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue.
It is a building with major architectural and cultural significance. It is a gem to be protected and preserved
for our future. It represents one of the earliest partnerships between Town and Gown. It is important that this
building should remain for our children and our children's children to see and learn from about their heritage.
Sally Grubb
Sally Grubb
Ithaca, NY 14850
607 257-6017
607 279-9189 cell
Historic Designation for No.9 Fire Station, 311 College Avenue https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:48 AM
Supporting Preservation of the No. 9 Fire Station
Stephanie Iacovelli [sri6@cornell.edu]
Sent:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:38 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
Mr. McCracken,
I am writing to urge the ILPC to preserve the No. 9 Fire Station located at 311 College Ave. This piece of
architecture is a centerpiece of Collegetown and Cornell University and I believe we have torn down enough
historic buildings in Ithaca. Thanks for your time.
Stephanie
--
Stephanie Iacovelli
BA, Biological Sciences
Cornell University, 2011
Tufts University
Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine Candidate, 2019
Supporting Preservation of the No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:54 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Sue Merrick [suemerrick01@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:49 AM
To:Bryan McCracken
Please vote yes to preserve this fantastic fire station as a landmark preservation site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sue Merrick
607-425-7218
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:50 AM
No. 9 Fire Station
Tom W. [twaku77@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:54 PM
To:Bryan McCracken
Please include my support for historic designation of No. 9 Fire Station with a street address of 311
College Ave., Ithaca, NY . 14850
--
Tom Wakula
Age is a case of mind over matter.
If you don't mind, it don't matter.
-Satchel Paige
No. 9 Fire Station https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAA...
1 of 1 2/13/2018, 10:49 AM
3104835.1
One Lincoln Center | Syracuse, NY 13202-1355 |bsk.com
KATHLEEN M. BENNETT
kbennett@bsk.com
P: 315-218-8631
F: 315-218-8741
February 13, 2018
VIA HAND DELIVERY
City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street - 3rd Floor
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re:Proposed Landmark Designation – 311 College Street (The Nines)
Dear Commission Members:
We represent Mark Kielmann and Harold Schultz in connection with the proposal by the
City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) to designate the property
owned by Mr. Kielmann and Mr. Schultz at 311 College Street as an individual local
historic landmark. Since 1980, our clients have operated a restaurant known as, The
Nines on the Property. In 2016, our clients entered into a purchase contract pursuant to
which the Property would ultimately be sold to a developer and converted into much
needed student housing – a use which is entirely consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. Upon learning of proposed plans to redevelop the Property, the ILPC
indicated its intention to designate the Property as a local landmark. However, as set
forth herein, based on the information in ILPC’s own application, there is little support
for designation of the Property as an individual local historic landmark. Instead, given
the timing of the ILPC’s application, it is patent that the ILPC’s purpose is to make
redevelopment of the Property more difficult, if not impossible. In fact, the ILPC’s action
had its intended effect of interfering with the sale of the Property and impacting the
reasonable investment backed expectations of our clients.
Considerations for Designation
Prior to designating the Property as an individual local historic landmark pursuant to the
City's Landmark Preservation Code, the ILPC must find that the Property:
(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;
(2) Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s);
(3) Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style;
City of Ithaca Landmark Preservation Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 2
3104835.1
(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.
Based on the Narrative Description of the property prepared by the City, the ILPC is
reaching in an effort to prevent the Property from being sold and developed for student
housing – a use which is actually consistent with what the surrounding neighborhood
has become and with what it needs.
First, the Property only possesses local interest with respect to the history of fire
protection within the City of Ithaca. However, that history is already well-preserved in
the written narrative and involves multiple fire stations – not just Fire Station No. 9. In
fact, the only thing special about the Property is that Fire Company No. 9 was the final
fire company established in Ithaca. According to the narrative, the Property is not even
the original location of Firehouse No. 9 and within 10 years of being constructed, it was
already viewed as largely obsolete. Had funding been available Firehouse No. 9 would
have been torn down in the early 1900s. Instead, the original bell tower and front
façade were replaced in 1907-1908 when an addition with a new façade was
constructed at the front of the Fire Station. Moreover, ILPC’s narrative states that the
condition of the structure is not pristine. According to the narrative the original firehouse
is deteriorating due to water infiltration and rodent/insect activity and the resulting
deterioration of the shingles hardly makes the building a noteworthy example of a
shingle style civic building. The narrative also notes that the 1907-1908 façade has
been altered with non-historic infill including windows and doors. Accordingly, it is a
stretch to say the building largely retains its essential form.
Second, the report does not demonstrate that the Firehouse is identified with a
historically significant person or event. Firehouse No. 9 does not appear to be any
more remarkable than any of its predecessor stations historically. To assert that the fire
station enabled tremendous growth by Cornell University and student housing on East
Hill overstates its importance. Cornell University and related student housing were
growing and would have continued to grow even in the absence of the fire station.
Third, the Property does not embody the distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural style and the narrative does not suggest that it does.
Fourth, while the Property may have been associated with architects who were
prominent locally for a brief period of time, it is not the work of a designer whose work
has significantly influenced an age, which is the required finding under the Landmark
Preservation Code.
City of Ithaca Landmark Preservation Commission
February 13, 2018
Page 3
3104835.1
Fifth, the Property may very well represent an established and familiar visual feature of
the community by virtue of its location (on College Street surrounded by student
housing developments) or physical characteristics (set back off the street unlike
surrounding buildings) – but not by virtue of its original and historical use as a fire hall.
In fact, its original use as a fire hall is not significant, since there were multiple fire halls
in the City. Likewise, its interim uses as housing did not establish the Property as a
significant visual feature of the community. Instead, the Property’s “establishment as a
familiar visual feature” stems from its present use as a local restaurant serving the
community. This modern day recognition is not a sufficient reason to designate the
Property as an individual local historic landmark – especially considering that the
surrounding neighborhood is being redeveloped for student housing and the Property's
structure and its setback from the street is inconsistent with the surrounding
developments.
Conclusion
Accordingly, since the ILPC has utterly failed to satisfy the criteria, designation of the
Property as an individual local historic landmark would be arbitrary and capricious.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
Kathleen M. Bennett
KB/kb
cc: Harold Schultz
Peter Littman, Esq.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee
RE: 311 College Ave., Ithaca, NY
February 13, 2018
- 1 -
February 13, 2018
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, N.Y., 14850
RE: 311 College Ave.
Ithaca, NY, 14850
Mr. Chairman McCracken, and other members of the Landmark Preservation Committee, and
other interested parties:
Please accept this letter in opposition to the proposed Landmarking of 311 College Ave. I am
submitting this as attorney for Mr. Kielmann and Mr. Schultz, and would appreciate your review
of this letter and the remarks Mr. Kielmann will give at tonight’s meeting.
My name is Mark Kielmann, and I have been an owner of the building at 311 College Ave.,
Ithaca, along with my partner, Harold Schultz, for the past 38 years. During those years, we
have been operating the restaurant “The Nines,” a modestly priced pizza / sandwich restaurant.
Tonight I want to talk to you about our business and our building, and suggest that this building
should NOT be designated as a Landmark Building by the ILPC.
Long before this Committee listed The Nines as a candidate for Landmarking, my partner and I
entered into a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement with Mr. Todd Fox. The contract was
signed on December 20, 2016, about 14 months ago. Mr. Fox is one of several individuals who
operate a development company called Visum Development Group. That group has developed
several properties in Ithaca, in Collegetown and elsewhere.
Harold and I have always viewed the Nines building as a real estate investment that we would
eventually sell to a developer when the time became appropriate. Harold and I opened The Nines
38 years ago. Running it has been my entire career. The growing value of the building has been
my retirement plan. Without a sale of the building at today’s market value, I will have worked
38 years for nothing, which is not fair. Both Harold and I have been productive members of the
community, and have worked hard to be generous to The Ithaca Festival and other community
events. In 2016, we decided that it was time to sell the property and allow it to be developed the
way that a multitude of other Collegetown properties have been developed in the last 20 years,
and even more new developments that we have seen in the past 3-5 years.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee
RE: 311 College Ave., Ithaca, NY
February 13, 2018
- 2 -
At this point in time, both Harold and I, and Todd Fox have spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars in anticipation of the sale, and development of the site as a much needed building for
student housing. If this Commission votes to recommend Landmark status to the Nines building,
the sale to Todd Fox will not take place, and the owners will suffer a significant financial
hardship. In addition, the City of Ithaca will lose out on millions of dollars in future real estate
taxes which would be a significant loss to the City as well.
Before coming here tonight, we have been in contact with the County Department of
Assessment. The director of that department, Jay Franklin has reviewed the market value and
potential future market value of 311 College Avenue. His analysis is contained in a letter dated
February 8, 2018, which we have handed out to Mr. McCracken and the committee members.
Simply put, the current assessment of the Nines property is $775,000, which he refers to as a
“valuation in use”, and not “highest and best use.” Mr. Franklin has also estimated the future
assessment value of the property were it to be developed as proposed by Mr. Fox, or by any other
developer to be “conservatively” EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS ($8,000,000.00). Based upon
those figures, the City, County, and School District will lose out on real estate taxes which would
be at least 5 - 10 times more per year than the current tax. That loss would amount to at
least $250,000 in lost tax revenue every year.
It's also important to note that the original firehouse (the oldest part of the building at the rear of
the lot) is in very bad condition. Also, aside from the kitchen, office and some storage, the
two upper floors of the whole building are entirely vacant. Rehabilitating the exterior of the
original firehouse and renovating the upper floors of the entire wood framed building to meet
code for any viable use would require an investment that would be hard if not impossible to
recover. Please note that the Historic Resource Inventory Form, attached to the Notice of this
Hearing states clearly that the condition of the building is “DETERIORATED,” a factor that
should rule out any designation for Landmarking.
Not only is the building deteriorated, we do not believe that the building has any real historical or
architectural value. Much of the original wooden fire house is gone – the roof, the bell tower,
and the front of the building. The move to designate the building has come too late, now that
zoning in Collegetown has changed to favor development. The building is no more historic now
than it ever was, and that any designation should have come before the developer came forth
with the revised plans.
In addition to the substantial loss to the City, Harold and myself, as current owners, will be
prevented from selling this property to a ready, willing and able buyer, which will cause us
irreparable financial hardship. Among others, here is the way the Landmarking of this property
would create a financial hardship:
1. The fact that we had a contract to sell the property has been well know in
Collegetown, and in the City of Ithaca:
2. The loss of time, and expenses that we have spent entering into the sale
agreement, and continuing to extend the time deadline for Mr Fox to close.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee
RE: 311 College Ave., Ithaca, NY
February 13, 2018
- 3 -
3. There was nothing publically being said that gave any hint that this Commission
was considering recommending The Nines for Landmarking
4. The Landmarking of this property would most likely prevent the current owners
from ever being able to sell this property for a financially reasonable amount.
5. The current Sales contract would suffer a “frustration of purpose” as any
Landmark designation would prevent the property from being economically developed by
anyone.
6. The current owners will be essentially prevented from soliciting any other
prospective developer to purchase the property for development in a financially feasible
way.
7. The City and Cornell University will lose the opportunity for housing at least 50
to 100 students, which would obviously mean that another property will be needed to
house those students, since it is an established fact that there is a major shortage of
student housing on campus and in Collegetown.
8. As the Committee is very well aware, Mr. Todd Fox and his group have a new,
updated design which includes many features which would maintain much of the exterior
design of the current building.
In addition to those financial hardships for the current owners, to the City of Ithaca, and the loss
of needed student housing, we have not heard any proposals for how the property can be used in
the future in a financially feasible manner. There would be no incentive for anyone to purchase
the property and invest significant dollars in owning and/or developing it.
In addition, we just wanted to mention that neither Harold nor myself have had the time or the
resources to engage in any public solicitation of people or groups to join us in opposing the
potential Landmarking of the Nines. As opposed to that, we have been advised that Historic
Ithaca has put together a pamphlet in favor of Landmarking the Nines, and they have been
distributing that pamphlet throughout the real estate community and business community in
Ithaca and Tompkins County. (We have also provided a copy of the Historic Ithaca pamphlet to
Mr. McCracken and the other committee members.) We further believe it would be unfair to
designate this property at this late point in time, as any Landmark designation would be a
significant financial hardship on us.
Finally, it is unfair and prejudicial to Harold and myself, and misleading to this
committee's members and to the community to continue referring to this property as Fire Station
No. 9, or No. 9 Fire Station. Fire Station #9 is next door at 309 College Avenue. The building
under consideration for Landmarking is at 311 College Avenue and it has not been a fire station
for over 50 years, it is misleading that in all the correspondence, and comments we have seen,
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Committee
RE: 311 College Ave., Ithaca, NY
February 13, 2018
- 4 -
the property is not once referred to as “THE NINES,” which has served thousands of Ithacans,
and College students and faculty from all over the world for the past 38 years.
We sincerely urge this committee to reject designation of The Nines for Landmark Preservation
status when you convene to discuss and vote on this proposal.
Thank you all for your time and your fair consideration of this issue.
Very truly yours,
Peter N. Littman
PNL:rj
Taylor Peck
6315 States Road
Alpine, NY 14805-9716
lory@htva.net
March 9, 2018
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Common Council - Ithaca City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: 311 College Ave. aka The Nines
Dear Members of the Planning & Development Committee:
Since I cannot make your March 14 meeting in person, I am writing this letter instead.
I came to Ithaca 49½ years ago as a freshman at Cornell in September 1968. I met Mark
Kielmann the following fall (we lived in the same dorm) and we’ve been friends ever since. In
1976, Mark, and his partner Harold Schultz, opened the Chariot Restaurant in the basement
space (the original location of the Ithaca Guitar Works) in a building owned by Jason Fane.
In 1980, Mark and Harold bought the old #9 Firehouse building from Michael Turback, who
saved the building by buying it back in 1971 when the City auctioned it off. I remember asking
Mark then why they had bought the building. He replied, “It will be our retirement.” I was
impressed by his long-term vision. Mark also added, “It strengthens our hand when we have to
negotiate a new lease for the Chariot with Jason.” This worked; the Chariot continued in
business for many more years.
[Fast-forward several decades.] Years of planning meetings, much, much discussion, major
changes in zoning for Collegetown, and now the resulting development. About a decade ago,
there much discussion by Planning Board about possibly landmarking various Collegetown
buildings. A couple buildings were landmarked, but no formal historic designation ensued for
311 College Ave. (or for many other Collegetown properties). This all came to a head late last
year in the 400 block of College Ave.
I am a member of, and a donor to, Historic Ithaca, but I disagree with their position here.
This building should not be landmarked. In my opinion, the building is not architecturally
significant and there have been many changes to it over the years. The back part of the building
was moved from its original location and the bell tower and the original front were removed
then. It was subsequently altered by the city when the front half was attached. Windows have
been boarded up. The front patio and awning have been added, and the front railing has been
changed.
Granted, it will be the end of an era when The Nines closes. It stopped being a firehouse in
1968. Most people think (many nostalgically) of The Nines as a restaurant, a bar, and a live
music venue than they do as an old firehouse. The Chariot closed a while ago. Blue Monday at
The Nines ended several years ago. The Royal Palm bar no longer exists, too.
Page 2 of 2
The City is already ahead in this process. Visum Development Group’s newer design is quite
handsome, and is a clear improvement over their first version. Even though John Schroeder’s
mind continues to be completely made up for landmark designation, he likes the design a lot.
Taylor Peck
6315 States Road
Alpine, NY 14805-9716
lory@htva.net
From the Ithaca.com site on Nov 30, 2017, “Schroeder offered effusive praise of the building's
design.” From the “Ithacating” blog on Dec 2, 2017, Brian “he [Schroeder] said something to
the effect of, if this design were proposed for any other MU-2 in Collegetown, he would have no
problems with it whatsoever”.
Mark sold his first pizza fifty-two years ago when he was still in high school. He worked his
way through Cornell bartending at the Chapter House. He’s been in business in Collegetown for
over forty years. He deserves to retire. And now the rules might get changed at the last minute?
It does not seem fair to me. I repeat; this building should not be landmarked. Please table the
ILPC’s proposal.
Sincerely,
Taylor Peck
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
RE: LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FORMER No. 9 FIRE STATION AT
311 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 February 13, 2018, the ILPC conducted a public hearing for the purpose of
considering a proposal to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 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 and 4 defining a “Local
Landmark,” under Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code and on February 13,
2018, voted to recommend the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board shall file
a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the
comprehensive plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any
plans for the renewal of the site or area involved, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of the
designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on February 27, 2018, 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 Planning and Economic Development Committee finds that the proposed
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 Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, [meets/does not meet]
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
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced and
age, and be it further
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Committee recommends to Common Council
approval of the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 as a local
landmark.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee disapproves the
designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and the
adjacent areas identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee forwards the
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 to
Common Council with a recommendation to disapprove the designation.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee refers the proposed
designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and the
adjacent areas identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 back to the ILPC for
modification, with the Committee recommendation to evaluate the architectural
integrity of the 1894-95 wood-frame fire station and its ability to reflect its
historic significance.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: 0
Seconded: 0
In favor: 0
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
[Type here]
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: March 8, 2018
Re: Proposal to Establish a Planned Unit Development Overlay District
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to establish a Planned Unit
Development Overlay District (PUDOD).
As was previously discussed at the December Planning Committee meeting, the City currently only
permits PUD applications for properties zoned industrial. Staff is recommending expanding this
legislation to allow for proposals in areas of the City where additional development is anticipated,
with the exception of areas where established 1 and 2 family neighborhoods exist.
At the request of the Committee 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 Tompkins County Planning Department and various other City staff and
departments. Enclosed are the comments that were received, along with a resolution establishing
lead agency and a resolution for environmental significance. Also enclosed are blow up maps of the
proposed PUDOD boundary in the Collegetown and the Henry Saint John’s neighborhoods.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at
274-6410.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Page 1 3/13/2018
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to
Expand the Area Permitted for Planned Unit Developments By
Creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-____
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation
allowing for the City to establish Planned Unit Development
districts on any property in the City currently zoned for
industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2017, the Common Council adopted new
zoning for the waterfront districts, which included a statement
recognizing that the adopted zoning may not allow for projects
that could be beneficial to the community and recommended that
the City consider adopting legislation to allow for PUDs
throughout the City, including in the waterfront districts, and
WHEREAS, A PUD is a tool that allows the Common Council to have
flexibility to approve projects that may not fit into the
underlying zoning, but may have benefits for the community that
outweigh any impacts resulting from not complying with the pre-
established regulations for that district, and
WHEREAS, in order to allow for potential development that could
bring significant benefits to the community, staff has
recommended the establishment of the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District, which would allow for PUDs in areas of the
City where additional development is anticipated, but would
protect areas that have established 1 and 2 family residential
neighborhoods; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12. of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, Zoning Map of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to create
a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) to include
properties located Within the boundaries displayed on the map
entitled “Proposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District (PUDOD)-December 2017”,” a copy of which shall
be on file in the City Clerk’s office.
Page 2 3/13/2018
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.B, entitled “Purpose and
Intent”, is hereby amended in order to change the allowable
location for a potential PUD, and should read as follows:
§325-12.
B. Purpose and intent.
(1) This legislation is intended to institute procedures and requirements for
the establishment and mapping of PUDs, which may be placed in any
location approved by the Common Council, as long as it is located
within the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD), the
boundaries of which can be seen on the attached map, “Proposed
Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) -
December 2017”. The PUD is a tool intended to encourage mixed-use or
unique single use projects that require more creative and imaginative
design of land development than is possible under standard zoning
district regulations. A PUD allows for flexibility in planning and
design, while ensuring efficient investment in public improvements,
environmental sensitivity, and protection of community character. A
PUD should be used only when long-term community benefits will be
achieved through high quality development, including, but not limited
to, reduced traffic demands, greater quality and quantity of public
and/or private open space, community recreational amenities, needed
housing types and/or mix, innovative designs, and protection and/or
preservation of natural resources.
(2) Section 325-12 is intended to relate to both residential and
nonresidential development, as well as mixed forms of development.
There may be uses, now or in the future, which are not expressly
permitted by the other terms of this chapter but which uses would not
contravene the long-range Comprehensive Plan objectives if they
adhere to certain predetermined performance and design conditions.
The PUD is intended to be used to enable these developments to occur
even though they may not be specifically authorized by the City zoning
district regulations.
(3) The PUD is intended to be used in any area located within the PUDOD.
Should a proposed project offer community-wide benefits, the Common
Council may establish a PUD in order to permit uses not explicitly
allowed by the underlying zoning.
(4) Areas may be zoned as a PUD by the Common Council. The enactment
and establishment of such a zone shall be a legislative act. No owner of
land or other person having an interest in land shall be entitled as a
matter of right to the enactment or establishment of any such zone.
Page 3 3/13/2018
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.C, entitled
“Establishment and Location”, is hereby amended in order to
remove the sentence that states that the PUD is intended to be
used in industrial zones, and should read as follows:
C.
Establishment and location.
(1) The intent of a PUD is to create self-contained, architecturally
consistent, and compatible buildings, many times with diverse but
related uses. The creation of a PUD must entail sufficient review to
assure the uses within the zone will have negligible or no significant
adverse effects upon properties surrounding the zone. In reaching its
decision on whether to rezone to a PUD, the Common Council shall
consider the general criteria set forth in this chapter, the most current
Comprehensive Plan for the City, and this statement of purpose.
(2) No PUD shall be established pursuant to Subsection G (13) of this section unless
it is located within the boundaries of the PUDOD. .
Section 4. 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 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
J E S S U P RO A D
CAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROAD
CAMPUS ROAD
CAMPUS ROAD
CAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROAD
HOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADHOY ROADDEA RB O RN P L A CE
DEA RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
RB O RN P L A CE
DEA
R B O R N P L A CE TRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADTRI
PHAMMER ROADWAIT AVEWAIT AVEWAIT AVEWAIT AVE
WAIT AVEWAIT AVEWAIT AVEWAIT AVEWAIT AVE KELVIN KELVIN KELVIN KELVIN KELVIN KELVIN KELVIN KELVIN KELVI
N PLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACESUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEV A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
V A L L E Y R O A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
R ID GE DA L E RO A D
I R V IN G P L A C E
I R V IN G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
I R V I N G P L A C E
N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366N YS ROU TE 366GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
GILES STREET
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E
T
R
E
V
A A
V
E
N
U
E ONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACEONEIDA PLACENYS ROUTE 366
NYS ROUTE 366
NYS ROUTE 366NYS ROUTE 366
NYS ROUTE 366NYS ROUTE 366
NYS ROUTE 366
NYS ROUTE 366NYS ROUTE 366
HARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACE
HARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACE
HARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACE
HARVARD PLACE
OXFORD PLACE
OXFORD PLACE
OX F ORD P L ACEOXFORD P L ACE
OX F ORD P L ACEOXFORD P L ACE
OX F ORD P L ACE
OX F ORD P L ACE
OX F ORD P L ACE
W ATE R STRE ET
W ATE R STR E ET
W ATE R STR E ET
W ATE R STR E ET
W ATE R STR E E T
W ATE R S TR E E T
W ATE R S TR E E T
W ATE R S TR E E T
W ATE R S T R E E T ITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADITHACA ROADB
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
B
RY
A
N
T
A
V
E
NU
E
MITCHELL STREET
MITCHELL STREET
MITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREET
MITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREET
MITCHELL STREET
MITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREET DELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREET
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
A
ND
ON
P
L
A
C
E
E
AS
T M
A
R
TIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G J
R/ S
TA
T
E S
T
R
EE
T
E
A
S
T M
A
R
TIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G J
R/ S
TA
T
E S
T
R
EE
T
E
A
S
T M
A
R
TIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G J
R/ S
TA
T
E S
T
R
EE
T
E
A
S
T M
A
R
TIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G J
R/ S
TA
T
E S
T
R
EE
T
E
A
ST M
A
RTIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G J
R/ S
TAT
E S
T
R
EET
E
A
ST M
A
RTIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G J
R/ S
TAT
E S
T
R
EET
E
A
ST M
A
RTIN L
U
T
H
E
R KIN
G JR/ S
TAT
E S
TR
EET
E
A
ST M
A
RTIN LU
TH
E
R KIN
G JR/ S
TAT
E S
TR
EET
E
A
ST M
A
RTIN LU
TH
E
R KIN
G JR/ S
TAT
E S
TR
EETCENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUE
COLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
THURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVE
ROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACE
HEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTSHEIGHTS
COURTCOURTCOURTCOURTCOURTCOURTCOURTCOURTCOURT
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
WYCKOFF AVENUE
L
ODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYLODGE WAYBBBBBBBBBSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUC A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D
C A M P U S R O A D SAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEHIGHLAND AVENUEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLBARTON PLNE LNNE LNNE LNNE LNNE LNNE LNNE LNNE LNNE LN
RRR
R
R
RRRR
CENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUESOUTH AVESOUTH AVESOUTH AVE
SOUTH AVESOUTH AVE
SOUTH AVESOUTH AVESOUTH AVE
SOUTH AVE
EDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANE
EDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANE WEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEWEST AVEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACE
HIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACE
HIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACE
HIGHLAND PLACE
THE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLL
STEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUEWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACE
OSMUN PLACE
OSMUN PLACE
OSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACE
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
E D G E C L IF F P L A C E
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHAM PLACE
NEEDHA
M PLACE
McGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACEMcGRAW PLACECAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD CAYUGA HEIGHTS ROAD RIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADRIDGEWOOD ROADSTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUELOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPKLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
KLINE ROAD
QUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREET
QUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREET
KING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREET LAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETLAKE SREETEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VEEAST
SHORE DRI
VENORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREET
EAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREET
EAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREET
EAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREET
EAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREET
EAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREET
EAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREET
EAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREET
LINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUEBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEDUNMORE PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACE
ORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACE
COOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREET
CATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREET
SOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACEFERRIS PLACENORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEELSTON PLACEJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETJAMES STREETCOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGECOTTAGEEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET STEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACEPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETHUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
HUDSON STREET
STREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREET
PLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREET
COLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREET
COLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREET
EAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREET
EAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREET
TURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACEEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREET
SPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETP R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
P R O S P E C T
EAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREET
EAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREET
GI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETGI
LES STREETHAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HAWTHORNE PLACE
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXT
HUDSON STREET EXTHUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.HUDSON ST.PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
PEARSALL PLACE
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
CRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACECRESCENT PLACE
HA W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C L E
H A W T H O R N E C I R C LE
H A W T H O R N E C I R C LE
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
RENZETTI
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
E
P
LA
C
EHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURTGRANDVIEW COURT
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
GRANDVIEW AVENUE
HUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACEHUDSON PLACESOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETSOUTH AURORA STREETHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACE
GRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEGRANDVIEW PLACEC O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
C O D D IN G T O N R O A D
DANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADDANBY ROADSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREET
WILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREET
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
D
D
R
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
DDR
Y
D
E
N
R
OA
DE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREET
E BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREET
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUE
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
W ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYW ILLARD W AYLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTLLENROC COURTSTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUED E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
D E W IT T P L A C E
CORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUE
CORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUE
DEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUELINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETCASCADILLA PARK ROAD
CASCADILLA PARK ROAD
CASCADILLA PARK ROAD
CASCADIL LA PARK ROAD
CASCADIL LA PARK ROAD
CASCADIL LA PARK ROAD
CASCADIL LA PARK ROAD
CASCADIL LA PARK ROAD
CASCADIL LA PARK ROAD
EAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREET
EAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREET
EAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREET
EAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREET
FARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREET
FARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREET
SEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETCASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
YATES STREETYATES STREETYATES STREETYATES STREET
YATES STREETYATES STREETYATES STREETYATES STREETYATES STREET
TOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREET
TOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREETTOMPKINS STREET
MARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREET
MARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREETMARSHALL STREET NORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETSTATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13STATE HIGHWAY 34 & 13NORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADPI
ER ROADNYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13PIE R ROAD
PIE R ROAD
PIE R ROADPIER ROAD
PIE R ROADPIER ROAD
PIE R ROAD
PIE R ROADPIER ROAD
SHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREETJAY STREET UTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREET
WEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREET
DEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETDEY STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEW E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
W E S T L IN C O L N S T R E E T
FI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETFI
RST STREETM O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
M O N R O E S T
L
AKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUELAKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUEL
AKE AVENUEESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREET NORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETH A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
H A N C O C K S T R E E T
SECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETSECOND STREETF R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
F R A N K L IN S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
A D A M S S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
M A D IS O N S T R E E T
CASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREET
CASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREET
NORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEWI
LLOW AVENUEFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETFOURTH STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETTHI
RD STREETM O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
M O R R IS A V E N U E
WASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREET
WEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETFIFTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETFI
FTH STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETNYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34CARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLETHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIR D STREET EXTEN SIO NTH IR D STREET EXTEN SIO NTH IR D STREET EXTEN SIO NTHIRD STREET EXTENSIO NTHIRD STREET EXTENSIO NTHIRD STREET EXTENSIO NTHIRD STREET EXTENSIO NTHIRD STREET EXTENSIO NTHIRD STREET EXTENSIO NSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETN O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
N O R T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E
S O U T H T IT U S A V E N U E SOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETHYERS STREETHYERS STREETHYERS STREETHYERS STREET
HYERS STREETHYERS STREETHYERS STREETHYERS STREETHYERS STREET
PARK STREETPARK STREETPARK STREETPARK STREET
PARK STREETPARK STREETPARK STREETPARK STREETPARK STREET
WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREET
CENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREET
CENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREET FAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREET
WEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREET
WEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREET
WEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREET
WEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREET
WEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREET
SOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADSPENCER ROADE L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A D
E L M IR A R O A DSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETWEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREET
WEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREETWEST CLINTON STREET SOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETFAIR STREETSOUTH STREETSOUTH STREETSOUTH STREETSOUTH STREET
SOUTH STREETSOUTH STREETSOUTH STREETSOUTH STREETSOUTH STREET
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
N
O
R
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
T
H TIT
U
S A
V
E
N
U
E NORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREET(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)(STATE RTE 34/13)STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13STATE RTE 96/34/13WOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREETWOOD STREET
SOUTH MEADOW STREETSTATE RTE 79
(STATE ROUTE 96)
CLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUE
CLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUE
S
OUT
H
F
UL
T
ON
S
T
RE
ET
STONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADSTONE QUARRY ROADCECIL A MALONE DRIVE
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A D
S P E N C E R R O A DELMIRA R O ADNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETW
EST STATE STREETBR
INDLEY STREETTABER STREET
TABER STREET
TABER STREET
TABER STREETTABER STREET
TABER STREET
TABER STREET
TABER STREET
TABER STREET
CHERRY STREETCOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECOMMERCIAL AVECHERRY STREETNYS ROUTE 13ACHESTNUT STREETS PE N C E R R O A D
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O AD
S PEN C E R R O ADELMIRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO AD
ELM IRA RO ADFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACE
HOOK PLACEHOOK PLACE
HOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACE
HOOK PLACE
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
E L M S T R E E T
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
N Y S R te 1 3
CLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLECLIFF PARK CIRCLE
W E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EW E S T VILLA G E PLA C EFIVE M ILE DR IVEFIVE M ILE DR IVEFIVE M ILE DR IVEFIVE M ILE DR IVEFIVE M ILE DRIVEFIVE M ILE DRIVEFIVE M ILE DRIVEFIVE M ILE DRIVEFIVE M ILE DRIVEHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDHALLER BOULEVARDELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLEELMCREST CIRCLETAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.PARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETCLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.CLIFF ST.HOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACE
HOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACE
SUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROAD
SUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADNYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96NYS ROUTE 96VINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLNYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89NYS STATE ROUTE 89WESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVECLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETCLI
FF STREETWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEWESTMOUNT DRI
VEHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREETHECTOR STREET
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
T A Y L O R P L A C E
TAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACENORTH TAYLOR PLACE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUE CAMPBELL AVENUET
RUMANSBURG ROADT
RUMANSBURG ROADT
RUMANSBURG ROADTRUMANSBURG ROADTRUMANSBURG ROADTRUMANSBURG ROADTRUMANSBURG ROADTRUMANSBURG ROADTRUMANSBURG ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADWI
LLI
AMS GLEN ROADHECTOR ST REET
HECTOR ST REET
HECTOR ST REETHECTOR ST REET
HECTOR ST REETHECTOR ST REET
HECTOR ST REET
HECTOR ST REETHECTOR ST REET FALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERFALL VI
EW TERCLIFF PARK ROAD
CLIFF PARK ROAD
CLIFF PARK ROADCLIFF PARK ROAD
CLIFF PARK ROADCLIFF PARK ROAD
CLIFF PARK ROAD
CLIFF PARK ROADCLIFF PARK ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
BROOKFIELD ROAD
WARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANEOAKWOOD LANECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUECAMPBELL AVENUEWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLWESTWOOD KNOLLNYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79NYS ROUTE 79SUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROAD
SUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADRICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACERICHARD PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACEWARREN PLACE0 1,500 3,000
feet
Proposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)-December 2017
Buildings
Parcel Boundaries
Proposed Boundary of the PUDOD
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 Datum
Map Source: City of Ithaca Zoning 2017 Ordinance
Map Prepared by: GIS Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, 8 December 2017.
SUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUE HARVARD HARVARD HARVARD HARVARDHARVARDHARVARDHARVARDHARVARDHARVARDOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLOXFORD PLB R Y A N T A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EBRYANT A V E N U EDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUE
BOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEC O L L E G E A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U ECOLLEGE A V E N U E
HIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEL IN D E N A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U ELINDEN A V E N U E
COOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREET CATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETCATHERINRE STREETN O R T H Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E TNORTH Q U A R R Y S T R E E T
EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETEAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR/STATE STREETS T E W A R T A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U ESTEWART A V E N U EWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETD R Y D E N R O A D
D R Y D EN R O A D
D R Y D EN R O AD
D R Y D EN R O AD
D R Y D EN R O AD
D R Y D EN R O AD
D R Y D EN R O AD
D R Y D EN R O AD
D R Y D EN R O AD
E BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETSTEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUEProposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)-Collegetown NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: City of Ithaca Zoning 2017 OrdinanceMap Prepared by: GIS Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, 8 March 2018.
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANPLEASANCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBCOLUMBT U R N E R P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C E
EAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTPROSPECTEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETEAST GREEN STREETHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIEHILLVIESOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRSOUTH HILL TERRNORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUES O U T H C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E T
S O U T H A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E T
S O U T H G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E T
CENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETF A Y E T T E S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E T
WEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETWEST GREEN STREETS O U T H P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TProposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)-Henry Saint John's NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: City of Ithaca Zoning 2017 OrdinanceMap Prepared by: GIS Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, 8 March 2018.
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner.
City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development, City Hall
108 Green St, Ithaca NY 14850
Dear Ms Kusznir, 2/6/2018
Re. 301 Dryden Rd – Petition for inclusion in Collegetown PUDOD
We came to City Hall Monday and explained to your assistant that we have been
actively looking at the New PUDOD papers that have been sent out before the
Wednesday Common Council Meeting and believe we are correct and therefore
disappointed that our property at 301 Dryden Rd is omitted from the Collegetown
PUD. We are concerned since our parcel has been Zoned as Residential
Development since the earliest days when we bought it 56 years ago being then
R3B which was then redesignated as CR4 with the new zoning via the Collegetown
plan. Indeed it has been a student boarding house since 1900 or earlier.
While we understand it remains CR4, it is one of 3 properties ( which including
ours are CR4) on ‘the peninsular’ bounded by Dryden Rd, Linden Ave and
Delaware Ave but with no address on that latter street.
Bill Lower Jnr who is the owner of 241 Linden Ave supports this petition.
It is noteworthy that these three properties on the East of Linden Ave always
stood alone and been treated separately from the remainder of the East side
Linden Ave houses on the Collegetown Design Guidelines Map and we ask for
them to be allowed to be included in the Collegetown PUDOD Map.
Our property itself is only separated from the new Brezzano Center Building
(MU2) by by the top of Linden Ave and is therefore the next building East on
Dryden Rd. The Brezzano is of course 85 feet high and is over twice our height.
Therefore we are already in the anomalous position of being a CR4 next to an
MU2 and to omit us from the PUL overlay makes it doubly anomalous as one
might expect to be an MU1 if adjacent to an MU2.
The three house peninsular as presently configured, if it were to be excluded from
the PUDOD, will likely become a small enclave overshadowed to the West by
Brezzano and very possibly by other tall buildings opposite on Dryden Rd parcels
which are to be included in the PUDOD and which even now stretch considerably
further up Dryden Rd on the North side. Nowhere are we adjacent to or close to
any of the private single family homes on Delaware, who we know object to
Collegetown encroachment. Those houses on Delaware closest have been rental
properties for many years.
We would therefore ask that you reconsider the omission of our property and of
our two neighbors from the Collegetown PUDOD and allow our inclusion. The
financial loss is that, if they were excluded, the three properties could not then be
amalgamated into one larger CR4 which would provide a useful lot size for
redevelopment. To omit them could be to lose the potential opportunity of them
contributing to the object of the Collegetown plan‐
to improve the dwelling amenities and to increase the City Tax base.
Yours Sincerely,
Jonathan Steel
Katharina and Jonathan Steel. 202 Linden Ave, Ithaca NY 14850
607‐351‐1115 jrsteel5353@aol.com
Ms. Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development
City Hall, 108 Green St
Ithaca NY 14850
Dear Ms. Kusznir, 2/7/2018
On Monday Mr. Steel, my husband came and spoke with your assistant at City
Hall and queried the PUDOD zoning map and status of our property at 301 Dryden
Rd . Both my neighbor Bill Lower Jr who supports me and I missed hearing about
this at the time. I am the only daughter and child of the recently deceased Emilie
Arnaudoff and am the sole heir of the property at 301 Dryden rd.
It appears that 241 Linden Ave owned by Bill Lower Jr, the Betsy Ching Po house
on Dryden beside us and my house 301 Dryden/243 Linden Ave has been
excluded from the surrounding neighborhood which is marked red in the new
map of the PUDOD as the boundaries of the PUOD. This type of exclusion was not
done when we became CR4 in the Collegetown design guideline’s original map.
We were then clearly separated as 3 CR4 properties at the tip of the peninsula
bordered by Linden Ave /Dryden Rd and Delaware Ave. This allowed us the
advantage that if we chose at any future date to amalgamate our properties we
would have a sizeable area for development and even if we chose not to
amalgamated it would be easier to develop. (To keep up with our ever higher
taxes and the surrounding competition) We feel although we are still CR4
separated from the true residential districts we lose some of our development
potential by the new map by excluding us from the new PUDOD map district. Bill
Lower Jr agrees with us and has said that I can write on his behalf. I am sure Betsy
would agree with me as well as we are cordial and friendly neighbors
This would be to our great disadvantage should we be planning development
there or were thinking of selling to developers at some near future time.
We with our neighbor supporting are resolved to ask if we can be included in the
Collegetown PUDOD district.
1) We are not directly adjacent or on the periphery to any of the privately
occupied residential properties on Delaware. We can’t be considered a
transition into a residential district as the surrounding properties are all
student rentals and have been for many years.
2) My family bought in 1962 what was then the R3b district because it was
thought to be a development zone. It was right next to and a transition
from the business district. We had sacrificed certain residential amenities
and quietness to be part of Collegetown. We bought 301 and another
property because we were business minded. We saw properties as an
investment for the future. Would it be right to exclude us from the Planned
development overlay district now when the future appears to have arrived?
We stand facing the new $30m Brezzano Business School as it towers above
us. It is directly across the street twice the height of our building on the
west side of Dryden Rd and Linden. Our corner plot is on the east side of
Dryden and Linden. New million multimillion dollar investments
apartments are also planned directly across from us facing us by Novarr’s
company on Linden Ave. Bedsits are being planned to house graduate
students and visitors of the business school. This is in direct competition
with our business which rents rooms to 18 students. Novarr’s newly
planned CR4 building is in the favored development overlay ours also CR4 is
not in your red PUDOD zone. Todd Fox with his company Visum is
developing and building at the moment also in a CR4 development district
within the red PUDOD zone just a few feet from us across the street on
Dryden Rd. Why we are not included in this opportunity to grow? We have
all rightfully planned to be included, paid our taxes all these years patiently
waiting for this very moment of opportunity. Should we see it denied to us?
We are aware the competition is increasing. Would it not then be unfair to
deny us this chance to keep our peninsula of 3 properties in the PUDOD red
zone?
Surely this small inclusion would not affect the properties below us and
give us a more graceful transition
3) In my opinion it appears discordant that we as a CR4 are next to an 85 ft
high MU2 building directly across the street on Linden Ave. I would like to
see 301 Dryden rd zoned as MU1 at least for the graceful transition to step
down in height from 85 ft to the MU1 height of 5 stories rather than four
stories with CR4 My husband raised this MU2 height issue during the very
lengthy consultation of the original Collegetown plan, because the talk was
of ‘a graceful transition’ but he was dismissed.(he never asked for MU1) If
we cannot be transferring down in height from MU2 to MU1 then to CR4 at
least allow all three of our CR4 buildings be in your PUDOD map red district
this allows us some chance against our competitors.
4) My parents were never notified or written to during the planning or
building stages of what was proposed by the architects who were
responsible for the building of the Brezzano Center even though our
building is a few feet away.. My husband and I also asked for the Brezzano
building to be chamfered in a public meeting for a better transition. At that
time we lost now in your PUDOD you agree this is right and advocate
chamfering of high buildings on corners. Can we not agree to be included
please in the red overlay district on the PUDOD map? This would help us to
invest in redevelopment and compete. I realize time is running out for
tonight’s meeting and it is late but this has far reaching future
consequences.
Thank you for your kind attention and more than timely consideration.
I remain
Respectfully yours
Anna Katharina Steel 301 Dryden Rd, Ithaca NY 14850
Ksteel202@yahoo.com
607‐351‐8987
950 Danby Rd, Suite 105 – Ithaca, NY 14850 P: (607) 330-4555 F: (607) 330-4508 1 of 3
To: City of Ithaca Common Council and
Planning & Economic Development Committee (PEDC)
c/o Department of Planning, Building, Zoning and Economic Development
108 E. Green St., 3rd Floor
Ithaca, NY 14850
From: Jason K. Demarest, AIA
Date: 3/13/2018
Re: Proposed Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)
I am writing in response to the proposal to amend city code section 325-12 that is currently being discussed by the
city. My initial understanding of the proposal came from the January 11th, 2018 Ithaca Voice article and additional
information found in the January 10th, 2018 PEDC meeting agenda. I am currently working with the owner of 303-
309 Dryden Rd on a development project, which led me to research the PUDOD proposal. I offer the following
comments on behalf of the owner of 303-309 Dryden Rd. and in general as an architect that works on development
projects within the City of Ithaca.
1. My understanding of the PUD process in the city, which is currently restricted to Industrial zones, is that an
application has to be made to Common Council and then approved before any modified zoning rights are
granted to a developer. This feels somewhat innocuous since all applications must be approved first, and
most importantly, the application must adhere to the following criteria for such approval:
a. Does the project further the health and welfare of the community?
b. Is the project in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan?
c. Does the project create at least one long-term significant community benefit?
In addition, one would logically conclude that the essence of the zoning district that a PUD project site
is in would be used as a general guideline. This process feels onerous for most developers since an
approval is needed, the project must provide a consistent benefit to the community, and major
deviations from the requirements of the base zoning district will need to be balanced by the proposed
project’s benefits. There is an inherent system of checks and balances within the PUD process.
2. The PEDC agenda for the 2/14/18 meeting included a discussion about a possible boundary adjustment
to the proposed PUDOD map. The Ithaca Voice article from 1/11/18 showed a map with some areas
that would be subject to discussion (an area near BJM and a portion of the East Hill Historic District).
I find it very difficult to interpret the rationale behind the mapping of the PUDOD boundary lines, as
well as for the potential removal of the two areas indicated in the Ithaca Voice article. Per the 1/10/18
PEDC agenda information, the proposed language of Ordinance No. 2014 states that the intention of
the PUDOD is to “allow for PUDs in areas of the City where additional development is anticipated, but
would protect areas that have established 1 and 2 family residential neighborhoods.” This language is part of
the ordinance, but the current discussion about the map boundaries suggests that the boundaries
allow a PUD designation as simply a matter of property rights. This is not true per the comments is
item #1 above. Not only is it too difficult for the City to know exactly where additional development
having significant benefits to the community will occur, an irregular or irrational map boundary may
suggest prejudice or unfairness when compared to the base mapping defined by the current zoning
regulations. As such, I suggest that the PUDOD mapping be as consistent with the current zoning
district mapping as possible. If the intention is to protect the 1 and 2 family neighborhoods, then the
950 Danby Rd, Suite 105 – Ithaca, NY 14850 P: (607) 330-4555 F: (607) 330-4508 2 of 3
PUDOD mapping should simply not include those zoning districts, R-1a & b and R-2a & b. It should
be noted that it is not clear if the ordinance intends to protect “neighborhoods” rather than 1 and 2
family zoning districts, but the mapping would be even more difficult to resolve without a clear
definition of “neighborhoods” with the City, whereas the zoning is clear. The appropriateness of a
PUD designation in close proximity to these 1 and 2 family neighborhoods, and the characteristics of a
PUD project should be assessed during the PUD application process.
3. A future consideration for inconsistent PUDOD map boundaries is the potential for disputes from
property owners. Exclusion of portions of historic districts requires a characteristic basis that is
significantly different than other areas of a historic district. These areas of the city are already subject
to severe development limitations, and removing some properties but not others should be done very
carefully. In my opinion, not at all. Another future concern is that excluded business or commercial
zoning districts that are adjacent to PUDOD areas will be impacted by any PUD projects, but at the
same time not afforded the same rights. Again, the PUD application process is onerous, so
exclusionary mapping seems counter to the idea of creative development within the city, and restricts
opportunity unjustly.
950 Danby Rd, Suite 105 – Ithaca, NY 14850 P: (607) 330-4555 F: (607) 330-4508 3 of 3
4. Specifically, as it relates to the future development of 303-309 Dryden Rd., the boundary mapping of
the PUDOD feels irregular or irrational. This property is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form
District, abuts the MU-2 district, is surrounded by other CR-4 properties included in the mapping, and
abuts a CR-3 district with only one property used as a 1 or 2 family residence (2 blocks away and
around the corner and may still be a student rental) but was excluded from the PUDOD mapping. As
noted in item #2 above, this lacks consistency and contradicts one of the primary stated tenents of the
proposed ordinance, which is to protect 1 and 2 family neighborhoods. Below is a sketch of the
zoning districts overlaid onto the PUDOD mapping for the area surround 303-309 Dryden Rd. The
parcels bounded in blue are currently designated as 1 or 2 family properties per the Tompkins County
Assessment Department. All others are commercial or rental properties.
In conclusion, my suggestion is for the City to consider a more balanced approach to the PUDOD mapping,
and trust that the PUD application process and ordinance language, perhaps with more stringent language, can
protect the property owners that may be affected by this expanded PUD district. In addition, I commend the
City for taking this step toward a more progressive approach to zoning.
Sincerely,
Jason Demarest, Architect
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Date: March 8, 2018
Re: Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Earlier this week, a revised draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was distributed for review.1 This
draft, dated February 2018, includes revisions to address comments submitted by members of the
public and City staff as well as modifications recommended by the Planning and Development Board
at their January 30, 2018 meeting. The revised draft provides additional information and clarifications
of the key ideas and recommendations presented in the original draft of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. Other changes include modifications to the formatting and organization of the document
and multiple editorial corrections. No major substantive changes to the content of the plan were made.
After reviewing the revised plan, it is staff’s opinion that it does address many of the comments and
concerns that were previously raised. However, staff identified some additional modifications that the
Planning and Economic Development Committee may wish to consider incorporating into a final
version of the plan. These possible modifications include:
Update the park inventory and level of service analysis to account for existing unpaved trails
within the city.
Better customize the Park Design Principles (pgs. 12-13) for Ithaca.
Create a section on the importance of parks within the Introduction and incorporate the
discussion of parks’ ecological value into this new section (currentl y “7.3 Ecological Value”).
Additional editorial corrections.
Staff is working with the consultant team on further revisions to address these points and will bring
them to Wednesday’s PEDC meeting for your consideration. If you have any questions about the draft
Parks and Recreation Master Plan or any of the supplemental information, please feel free to contact
me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
1 The draft plan is available for review on the City’s website at http://www.cityofithaca.org/618/Parks-Recreation-Master-
Plan
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review
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 adoption of an amendment to the comprehensive plan is a “Type I”
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review; 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 adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as
part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan – Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan as part of Phase II of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of
a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated December 4, 2017, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County
Department of Planning and Sustainability have been given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed plan, and no comments have been submitted to date, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” Action under the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the
FEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own
the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the Full Environmental Assessment Form,
dated December 4, 2017, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that
the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further
environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City
Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City
Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan - Resolution
WHEREAS, the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan,
where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and
principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes the
preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its Comprehensive Plan in 2015,
and Plan Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system as part
of Phase II, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council funded a parks and recreation master plan as part of
the City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various
aspects of the proposed plan, and
WHEREAS, PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work on
the draft plan in the fall of 2016, and
WHEREAS, the public was involved throughout the planning process through
stakeholder interviews, focus groups, surveys, and community events, and
WHEREAS, the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site
assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends and used
this information to prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, a draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was presented in early November
and was then circulated for further public comment, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State
General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for recommending
a comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the draft plan at its
December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings and recommended adoption of the plan
with several modifications, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the adoption of the proposed plan was held at the
January 10, 2018 Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting, and many
written comments have been submitted by community members and City staff, and
WHEREAS, in response to these comments, a revised plan, dated February 2018, was
prepared, and the revised draft provides additional information and clarifications of the key
ideas and recommendations presented in the initial document, and
WHEREAS, the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was submitted for review by
the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239-l-m of
the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500 feet of
a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County
Planning Department, and was also been distributed for review by the City of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, dated February 2018, as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide for future decisions made
by Common Council, City boards and commissions, and City staff, and be it further
RESOLVED, that Common Council shall establish regular reviews and updates of the
Comprehensive Plan every five years.
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION
(prepared by project sponsor/applicant)
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: Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Location of Action: City of Ithaca
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 E. Green Street
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14845
Business Phone: (607) 274-6550 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
Name of Owner (if different from applicant/sponsor):
Address:
City/Town/Village: State: ZIP:
Business Phone: E-Mail:
Description of Action: The proposed action is the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as
part of the City’s comprehensive plan. The plan is a guide for the future of the City’s parkland and
recreation programming. The plan provides a system-wide approach to managing and operating the
City’s parkland and addresses all City parks, with special attention to Stewart and Cass Parks as
regional destinations. It details recommendations for governance and operations; finance; recreation
programming; and land and facilities.
1
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present Land Use: Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other: _________________________
2. Total area of project area: 300 acres _____ square feet. (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)
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Article 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)] 14 14
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public 246 246
2g. Unvegetated (i.e., rock, earth, or fill)
2h. Roads, Buildings, & Other Paved Surfaces 40 40
2i. Other (indicate type): ___________________
3a. What is the predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): HsD3, Gn, Ws, Em, BtF,
Unknown
3b. Soil Drainage: Well-Drained: 2% of Site – Parks: Auburn, Brindley, Bryant, Conway,
Conley, DeWitt, Dryden, Thompson, Titus Triangle, Van Horn, Washington
Moderately Well-Drained: 95% of Site – Parks: Cass, Stewart, Strawberry
Fields, Maplewood, Baker, Columbia Street
Poorly Drained: 3% of Site – Parks: Hillview, Wood Street, McDaniels
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? variable
4c. What is depth to the water table? 0’ to unknown (feet) Some parks at lake level
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes:
0-10% 97% 10-15% 2%
15% or greater 1%
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
DeWitt Park Historic District; Cascadilla Boathouse
6b. Or a designated local landmark or located in a
local landmark district?
Yes No N/A
DeWitt Park Historic District
— PLEASE COMPLETE EVERY QUESTION. INDICATE “N/A,” IF NOT APPLICABLE. —
2
7. Do hunting and/or fishing opportunities currently
exist in the project area? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” identify each
species: Brown Trout; Brook Trout; Smallmouth
Bass
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: _____________________________
Identify each species: _______________________
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on
project site (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)?
Yes No N/A
Describe: Fall Creek gorge
10. Is project site currently used by community or
neighborhood as an open space or recreation
area?
Yes No N/A
If yes, explain: The study area for the plan is all
City parkland.
11. Does present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community? Yes No N/A
Describe: views of Cayuga Lake, Ithaca Falls, open
space, hillsides
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: UNA-98 (Hog Hole); UNA-99 (Biological
Station); UNA-100 (Stewart Park Woods); UNA-
134 (Fall Creek Gorge); UNA-137 (Octopus
Cliffs); UNA-153 (Negundo Woods)
13. Stream(s) within or contiguous to project area:
a. Names of stream(s) or river(s) to which it is a
tributary: Cayuga Inlet, Flood Control Channel,
Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Fall Creek
14. Lakes, ponds, or wetland areas within or
contiguous to project area:
a. Name(s): Cayuga Lake
b. Size(s) in acres: ___________
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
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate): All City-owned parkland is
included in the plan
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor either in acres: 300 or square feet: _______
1b. Project acreage developed: 40 Acres, initially 40 Acres, ultimately park buildings, roads, walkways,
and other amenities
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: NA
1d. Length of project in miles (if appropriate): 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: NA Per hour: NA
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure in feet: NA
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: _______________
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Number of jobs generated during construction: NA After project is completed: NA
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: NA Explain:
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes No N/A If “Yes,” explain:
___________________________________________________________________________________
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. is “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: _____________________________
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 Several parks are within the 100-year flood plain.
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: Several parks are adjacent to waterways within the city. There
are wetlands located in Stewart Park.
15a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes No N/A
15b. If #15a. is “Yes,” will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No N/A
15c. If #15b. is “Yes,” give name of disposal facility: and location:
____________
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:
DeWitt Park (located in the DeWitt Park Historic District) and the Cascadilla Boathouse are in the
study area of the plan but the plan does not recommend any actions that would negatively impact
these two resources. Any actions to implement the plan will be subject to their own environmental
review.
18. Will project produce odors? Yes No N/A If yes, explain: ________________________
19. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise-level during construction?
Yes No N/A After construction? Yes No N/A
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
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? P-1; MU-2
3. If site is developed as permitted by current zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
NA
4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes No N/A
5. If #4 is “No,” indicate desired zoning: _________________________
6. If site is developed by proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
NA
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) Most City zoning districts are within a ¼ mile radius of a city park.
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? NA
11. Will proposed action create demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation, education,
police, fire protection, etc.)? Yes No N/A Explain: _____________________
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
If yes, is existing road network adequate to handle additional traffic?
Yes No N/A Explain: __________________________________________
7
D. APPROVALS
1. Approvals: Adoption by Common Council
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 Recommendation
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC)
Board of Public Works (BPW)
Fire Department
Police Department
Director of Code Enforcement
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA)
Other: _____________________
8
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: City of Ithaca
Signature:
Title/Role: Senior Planner
***************** END OF PART 1 *****************
9
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 physic al change to project site? Yes No
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
10
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
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
11
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
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
12
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
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
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
13
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
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
14
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
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
15
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
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 enjo yment of the
resource. Yes No
Other impacts (if any):
Yes No
16
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
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 an y
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
17
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
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
18
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
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 officiall y 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
19
Small-to-
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact Be
Reduced by
Project Change?
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
— If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact,
or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 —
20
PROPOSED ACTION: Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: December 4, 2017
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed action is the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of Phase II
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan will serve as a guide for the operation and funding of
the City’s parkland and recreation programming over the next 15 years. It provides a system-wide
approach to managing and operating more than 300 acres of parkland and more than three miles
of publicly-accessible waterfront. The plan addresses all City parks, with special attention to
Stewart and Cass Parks as regional destinations on the waterfront.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is based on information gathered through data collection,
site assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends. The planning
processes examined community needs and evaluated the City’s current parks, recreational
facilities, and recreational programs in relation to those identified needs. The plan then provides
goals and recommendations for four key topic areas: (1) Land and Facilities; (2) Recreation
Programming; (3) Governance and Operations; and (4) Finance. While some recommendations
can be implemented as resources allow, others will require further analysis and planning before
moving forward.
Land and Facilities
In terms of parks and facilities, a level of service analysis identified several unmet needs,
including neighborhood parks, trail mileage, picnic shelters, basketball courts, and interactive
water features. In addition, it was noted that many existing facilities, while often sufficient in
number, are in poor condition and are not meeting current needs due to insufficient
maintenance and critical upgrades that have not been implemented. Lastly, equity mapping, a
geographic analysis of gaps in services, identified areas throughout the city where residents do
not have adequate access to a park or a particular amenity.
Recreation Programming
This study informed recommendations for future changes to programs the City offers. While
some recommendations focus on the types of programs that are offered, the majority of the
action steps concentrate on program management opportunities such as improved cost
recovery, volunteer coordination, and marketing.
Governance and Operations
The plan examines how the City’s parks are currently operated and suggests ways to improve
governance, including collaboration with Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca. The
primary recommendation is to consider Cass Park, Stewart Park (including Newman Golf
Course), and the Cayuga Waterfront Trail as a waterfront park district and establish an inter-
municipal park commission that would fund and manage the district. The commission would
include representation from the City, Town, and County. Ultimately, the commission could
work with an independent, non-profit conservancy that would gradually assume responsibility
for some aspects of operations. A conservancy would be able to supplement municipal
resources through fundraising.
21
PROPOSED ACTION: Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: December 4, 2017
Finance
The plan notes that the City trails far behind other New York State and regional communities
(as well as the U.S. as whole) in per capita funding for parks and recreation. The City spends
approximately $31.82 per capita annually on parks and recreation, compared to a median of
$54 per capita for other New York communities and a national average of $77 per capita. The
plan suggests incorporating one or more new revenue sources and identifies several options
for consideration. Another recommendation is to address underutilized parks, and five
neighborhood parks are noted for consideration. It may benefit the City and residents to
provide parkland at different locations that are easier to access and maintain while also filling
identified gaps in services and amenities. A Capital Improvement Plan is included to guide
investment, and it divides improvements into three categories – Critical, Sustainable, and
Visionary – based on the need for the project.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DeWitt Park is located within the DeWitt Park Historic District, which is a locally designated
historic district and is also on the National and State Register of Historic Places. The Cascadilla
Boathouse, in Stewart Park, is listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places. Neither
the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan nor the implementation of any of the plan’s
recommendations will have a negative impact on these historic resources.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Parks, recreational facilities, and recreation programming are the focus of the plan, and the
implementation of the plan will improve the quality and possibly increase the quantity of these
spaces and recreational opportunities. Any proposal for significant changes to City parks and
recreational facilities will be subject to its own environmental review to assess any potential
impacts.
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
Several designated unique natural areas are located on City parkland. Neither the adoption of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan nor the implementation of any of the plan’s recommendations
will have a negative impact on the unique natural areas.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will not affect the character of the existing
community, but some recommendations, if implemented, could have impacts on the character of
the community or neighborhood. The creation of an inter-municipal Park Commission would
establish a new way to fund and manage parks in the community, which could be an important
precedent for future actions. In addition, the implementation of some recommendations could
result in the replacement of existing recreational facilities and/or the substitution of existing
parkland. Any of these actions will be subject to its own environmental review to assess any
potential impacts.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Several residents have submitted comments expressing their concerns over the recommendation
to consider declassification of neighborhood parks near their homes. It is important to note that,
if this recommendation is implemented, parkland would not be eliminated and substitute parkland
22
PROPOSED ACTION: Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: December 4, 2017
must be provided to serve the community. The plan emphasizes providing neighborhood parks in
locations that best serve the community, and analysis demonstrated that there are geographic gaps
in service for both parkland and park amenities. At the same, several parks have been identified
as underutilized. This is not necessarily due to a lack of neighborhood interest in the park but
rather is often related to issues of poor drainage, topography, and access. These same issues
present serious maintenance challenges for City staff, and limited maintenance then adds to the
difficulty of using the parks. It may be possible to substitute parkland at a different location that
would offer more useable open space and additional amenities. This is a recommendation that
needs further consideration before moving forward. Any substitution of parkland would be subject
to a separate environmental review to assess any potential impacts.
23
Adopted Resolution
Planning and Development Board
Recommendation of the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan to Common Council
January 30, 2018
WHEREAS: the City is pursuing a two‐phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan, where
Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and
principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes the
preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and
WHEREAS: the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its comprehensive plan in 2015, and
Plan Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system as part of Phase
II, and
WHEREAS: the Common Council funded a parks and recreation master plan as part of the
City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various aspects of
the proposed plan, and
WHEREAS: PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work on the
draft plan in the fall of 2016, and
WHEREAS: the public was involved throughout the planning process through stakeholder
interviews, focus groups, surveys, and community events, and
WHEREAS: the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site
assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends and used this
information to prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
WHEREAS: the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, dated November 2017, was presented
in early November and was then circulated for further public comment, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General
City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for recommending a
comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board reviewed the draft plan at its December 19,
2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board recommends the
adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, dated November 2017, for review and
adoption by the Common Council as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan with the
following modifications:
i. Discuss the ecological value of parkland to the community and the environment.
ii. Strengthen the section on underutilized neighborhood parks (pg. 66) by adding a
discussion of the:
a. Challenges presented by the noted parks;
b. Justification for the recommendation to declassify the noted parks;
c. Further analysis that is needed before a park is declassified, including the
urbanistic rationale, the park’s environmental value, and park usage;
d. Need to identify substitute parkland before a park is declassified; and
e. Explanation of the process of declassifying a park and finding substitute
parkland, including opportunities for public input.
iii. Address the inconsistency between the recommendation for Strawberry Fields
between the text of the plan (pg. 66) and the action plan at the end of the document.
iv. Provide a geographic analysis of park access and income as part of the level of
service mapping.
v. Include a description of the City’s existing Adopt‐A‐Park program and information
on how neighborhood residents can apply to adopt a park. Note that the program
could be a good way to involve residents in park maintenance and upkeep before
considering declassification of a park
Moved by: Schroeder
Seconded by: Jones-Rounds
In Favor: Blalock, Elliot, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Public Comments Submitted 1/11/18-3/7/18
Hello Megan,
I appreciate that you took time to talk with me last night.
I read the report on the City parks, admittedly not the entire thing, and I was concerned that some
of the information regarding Strawberry Fields was not correct. The report said that the Fields
were not used often and that people could not access the park.
I live near the park and I hear and see children playing on the field often in good
weather. Families play baseball, softball, soccer, etc. I often walk my dog on this property at
night, as do others, and it is a beautiful quiet place to let her run and smell all there is to smell. I
have heard people complain that the grass is sometimes not maintained well, making sports a
little difficult at times.
The park is very accessible as I walk past the Belle Sherman school to get there. The many
people who use the park also seem to have no problem accessing the park. Maybe better signage
would help the people with this concern.
I hope the report can be corrected before action is taken by the Committee. Feel free to contact
me if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Eileen O'Connor
701 Mitchell St.
Hello Mr. Murtagh,
the proposal concerning selling Hillview park in the Parks and Recreation Plan states that it
should be sold because it is underutilized. This is surely true, especially in the last few years. But
the reason it is true is because of the drainage issues that have made it impossible for the park on
the north side (Columbia Street side) to be used. I know this because I have lived next to this
park for 16 years. When I first moved into my home, the park was maintained, had a picnic
table, and we often played softball in the park. Now, due to lack of maintenance on the part of
the city, it is impossible to use. It's like a swamp. In fact, the city hasn't mowed there in two
years, allowing grass to grow as high as four feet.
So the reasoning behind eliminating this park is faulty. I don't know if the poor drainage is due
to over development of the area, but we do know there are run-off problems.
In any event I support what’s best for our community as a whole. That said, I do hope the belief
in neighborhood green space as essential to our quality of life. “Parks are
important environmental infrastructure. Parks and green space cool our cities, they clean the air
we breathe and they help us manage stormwater. ... Parks and green space absorb or soak up
excess water in the environment, reducing the physical, social and economic impacts of storm
damage due to flooding.” ( http:://blog.centennialparklands.com.au/5-reasons-why-parks-
matter/. ). With South Hill filling up with dorm/like construction I feel it’s even more important
to preserve these spaces.
Thank you for letting me state my hopes and requests.
Best
Yvette Rubio
119 Columbia Street
From: Byron Williams [bw28@cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:06 PM
To: Joseph Murtagh
Subject: Hillview park #2
Hi again,
You stated in your notice that the city doesn’t take care of the park. We have an excellent view of this
park (it’s right across the street) and I have seen them take care of the park. Last summer they mowed
the park constantly and took care of some fallen trees. I really don’t think it’s in that bad of a shape. The
kids in the neighborhood are still using it for sledding. I am deeply upset that the city will get rid of this
park, it’s an incredible asset to the community and I really couldn’t bear living across from a parking lot
or another apartment complex. IT would be an incredible blow to the neighborhood and the
peacefulness of our living environment. I hope that the city will reconsider their selling of this park, it’s
one of the reasons I like living here. I hope that you can still enter my comments into the record. Thank
you, Byron Williams
(307 Hillview)
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Date: March 09, 2018
RE: Green Building Policy Report Second Draft
The purpose of this memo is to provide background information for the upcoming Green Building
Policy discussion at PEDC.
The main deliverable of this project is the attached Green Building Policy Report, which provides
policy recommendations for energy efficiency requirements and related incentives to substantially
reduce carbon emissions in all new buildings, while emphasizing and supporting affordability.
Extensive outreach has already been done to reach various stakeholder groups and municipal
boards, and all feedback received to date guided the creation of this second draft report. With
PEDC approval, we would like to circulate this report for additional public review and comments.
We will hold one final outreach meeting on the evening of March 28th to inform the final report.
Members of PEDC will have the chance to review and discuss comments at the April 11 meeting.
We aim to have a resolution of adoption considered at the May 02, 2018 Common Council meeting.
The report will follow a similar approval timeline through the Town of Ithaca.
Adoption of the report will close out phase 1 of this project. Phase 2 will involve turning the
recommendations into code language and preparing for implementation.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions at ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org or on my cell at
917-270-1683.
Attached:
1. Second Draft Green Building Policy Report (dated 03/09/18)
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Ithaca Green Building Policy
DRAFT Project Report 3/9/18
Written by:
With support from:
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 1
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 5
2 Green Building Policy Study and Social Impacts Study 10
3 Education and Outreach 49
4 Building Stock Survey and Development Forecasts 53
5 Glossary 80
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 2
1 Executive Summary
Climate change is a real and significant threat to our community, as it is to the nation and world.
Local goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 are roughly consistent with state,
federal, and international goals, even if federal activity is currently weaker. The building sector,
responsible for more than half of greenhouse gas emissions locally, is a critical sector to address.
Thus, the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca – with assistance from consultants STREAM
Collaborative, Taitem Engineering, and Randall + West Planners – have studied the potential of various
green building policy approaches.
1.1 Green Building Policy and Social Impacts Study
The project team reviewed current approaches and best practices for green building policies. On the
basis of this review, we propose a green building policy that emphasizes affordability, measurably
reduces carbon emissions, lends itself readily for compliance review, and provides flexibility and choice
to developers. The policy focuses on an approach that would be incorporated into site plan review and
the building code, requiring either a certain number of points to be achieved, or whole-building
compliance with a third-party certification system such as LEED.
1.2 Education and Outreach
An important part of implementing any new policy is to perform outreach to educate and gather input
from key stakeholders. The project team has met with a project steering committee and advisory
committee throughout the duration of the project to help guide and inform the process. The team also
participated in several presentations with energy and sustainability minded groups as well as town and
city committees and boards to present the overall project goals, preliminary findings and
recommendations for the implementation of the Green Building Policy. A public information session is
being planned for late March 2018 to reach out to members of the general public with special invitations
to key stakeholder groups such as developers, landlords, realtors, and architects. Additional personal
communications between the project team members and interested individuals has been ongoing and
suggested feedback has been incorporated into the recommendations.
The consultant team established a project website www.ithacagreenbuilding.comto store the core
information generated by the project including draft reports, meeting agendas, minutes, presentations,
reference materials and case studies. The website is a key tool for sharing information with the news
media and any interested member of the City and Town of Ithaca.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 3
1.3 Building Stock Survey and Development Forecasts
To help the community and our team understand the implications and potential levers for change that
can help the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca to achieve energy and water savings goals, Randall +
West developed a Survey of Existing Buildings and a Development Forecast. This analysis helps us to
understand the context for a Green Building Policy in the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca.
Our building stock survey detailed the type, location, size, and age of every building in the Town of
Ithaca and City of Ithaca. We gathered available local and regional information on building energy and
water use, and analyzed the permitting databases used by the City and Town. The trend in permitting
and building area show that a Green Building Policy for new construction will be one important
component in reducing community level greenhouse gas emissions, and that additional incentives
and/or mandates will need to address existing buildings, renewable energy development, and
transportation energy use in order to meet the City and Town goals for greenhouse gas emissions.
Based on data made available from local, state, and national sources, our projections suggest significant
growth and development continuing into the foreseeable future. This projection is based on population
and employment growth projections by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., a well regarded economic
projection firm, through the year 2050 based on market demand, the competitive position of Ithaca for
certain types of development, as well as the City’s and Town’s respective Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Maps. Our projections suggest modest but substantial growth and supports the findings of the
building stock survey: new buildings are a small but important component of the City and Town wide
future building stock.
1.4 Recommendations
The project team recommends a combination of energy efficiency requirements, and related incentives,
to substantially reduce carbon emissions in all new buildings while emphasizing and supporting
affordability. The project team also recommends further study and policy work in the area of existing
buildings.
The proposed requirements allow developers to either comply with a simple point-based scoring
system, or with a whole-building certification. There are underlying mandatory requirements for water
conservation. The requirements apply to all new buildings, as well as gut renovations, and large new
additions. Small building additions and limited renovations are proposed to comply with a more modest
energy-efficiency standard. Historic buildings are exempt from the requirement.
Energy efficiency requirements are proposed to go into effect as soon as possible, and to become more
stringent in 2025, and finally to transition to a requirement for net-zero energy buildings in 2030.
In order to further reduce carbon emissions and to promote the early adoption of best practices, a
variety of incentives are proposed for those buildings that significantly exceed the initial requirements.
These incentives will sunset in 2030.
Other recommendations deriving from the study include:
1. Consider conducting a similar study and policy for existing buildings.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 4
2. Consider adopting a benchmarking policy to require the tracking of energy usage for existing
buildings.
A summary of the proposed requirements is included in the abbreviated table below. Detailed
recommendations can be found starting in Section 2.14 of the report.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 5
Ithaca Green Building Policy - Summary Table
To comply with the Ithaca Green Building Policy, all new buildings must meet the requirements of the Easy Path OR
the Whole Building Path, AND meet the water efficiency requirement.
EASY PATH - Buildings must achieve six points
Category Improvement Points Details
EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION
EE1 Heat pumps or biomass
for space heating
2 - 4 2 points (Commercial) or 3 points (Residential) for air source heat
pumps. 3 points (Commercial) or 4 points (Residential) for ground
source heat pumps or biomass.
EE2 Heat pumps or biomass
for domestic hot water
1 1 point for water heating systems that use heat pumps or biomass
(Residential, Hotels, and Dorms).
EE3 Electric stove and
ventless heat pump
clothes dryer
1 1 point total for electric stoves AND ventless heat pump clothes
dryers (Residential).
Requires EE1 as prerequisite, and no fossil fuels in the building.
AFFORDABILITY IMPROVEMENTS
AI1 Smaller building/room
size (residential/hotel)
1 - 2 1 point for building/room size 15% smaller than reference size. 2
points for building/room size 30% smaller than reference size.
AI2 Heating systems in
heated space
1 1 point for placing heating/cooling systems and distribution inside
actively heated and finished spaces.
AI3 Simple building shape 1 1 point if exterior surface area divided by gross floor area is less
than maximum value provided in table.
AI4 Right-lighting 1 1 point for reducing overlighting and other lighting improvements
(Commercial).
AI5 Modest windows with
views and natural light
1 1 point for overall window-to-wall ratio less than 20% (individual
spaces may exceed 20%).
RENEWABLE ENERGY
RE1 Renewable energy
systems
(on-site or remote).
1 - 3
(3 points
max.)
Electric systems: 1 point per 1.2 kwh/sf/year renewable energy
capacity (Residential) or per 2.4 kwh/sf/year (Commercial).
Thermal systems: 1 point per 4.0 kBtu/sf/year renewable energy
capacity (Residential) or per 8.0 kBtu/sf/year (Commercial).
OTHER POINTS
OP1 Development density 1 1 point for density of more than 7 dwelling units per acre.
OP2 Walkability 1 1 point if the property is on the walkability map.
OP3 Adaptive reuse 1 1 point for substantial re-purpose of existing building.
OP4 Meet NY Stretch Code 1 1 point for complying with NY Stretch Energy Code
OP5 Energy improvement of
choice (2 points max.)
2
1 point for each 1.2 kwh/sf/year (Residential) or 2.4 kwh/sf/year
(Commercial) reduction in energy use. Prerequisite: no fossil fuels.
WHOLE BUILDING PATH
WB1 Comply with recognized
high performance
building standard
N/A Commercial: Passive House OR min. 17 energy points per LEED V4.
Residential: Passive House OR RESNET HERS/ERI max. 40 points OR
National Green Building Standard min. 80 energy efficiency points
WATER EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS
WE1 Use EPA Water Sense /
other efficient fixtures
N/A All buildings must meet this requirement, regardless of which
compliance path is used.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 6
1.5 Projected Impacts
The projected energy impacts of the green building policy are shown in the following graphs. The three
lines shown represent business as usual (blue), the impact of the green building policy in new buildings
(red), and the impact of both the green building policy in new buildings and energy efficiency in existing
buildings (green) assuming 25% reduction in energy use by 2030 and 50% reduction by 2050.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 7
Possible interpretations of these projections include:
1. The green building policy is required to slow the growth of energy use.
2. A separate policy will be required to deliver energy efficiency in existing buildings.
1.6 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q. Is the Ithaca Green Building Policy different from the NYS Energy Code?
A. Yes. The proposed Ithaca Green Building Policy would supplement to the NYS code that requires
a property owner to take steps to lower the overall greenhouse gas emissions of new or
renovated buildings in order to help meet the energy goals of the City and Town Comprehensive
Plans. The NYS code is a minimum standard and it does not effectively achieve the goals.
Q. How do I comply with the policy?
A. New construction and substantially renovated existing buildings will need to choose either an
”Easy Path” based on an estimated yet carefully calibrated point system OR the Whole Building
Path with third-party verification such as LEED, Passive House or other energy modeling to
demonstrate compliance above and beyond NYS Energy Code.
Q. How do I get points if I want to use traditional efficiency approaches, such as more insulation?
A. Points for more insulation and other traditional efficiency approaches are possible through the
NY Stretch Code which is part of the Easy Path. Or the “Energy Improvement of Choice” points
may be pursued. Or the Whole Building Path can be used.
Q. Will the green building policy make buildings more expensive?
A. If the Easy Path is chosen, points can be achieved using improvements that reduce energy use
AND reduce construction cost. So it is possible for a building to meet the requirements and cost
the same or less than a conventional building. If the Whole Building path is chosen, for wider
flexibility in design and construction, we anticipate the added cost might be 5-8% more than a
conventional building. We also anticipate that such added costs will continue to come down, as
we have seen significant cost reductions in areas such as LED lights, solar energy systems, and
other energy-efficient technologies.
Q. Do I need a special energy consultant?
A. Not if the Easy Path is chosen. If the Whole Building path is chosen, an energy consultant is
required. Costs of energy consultants can sometimes be covered through state (NYSERDA) or
utility or other energy programs.
Q. Can I use fossil fuels in my new building?
A. Fossil fuels are discouraged in several ways. But fossil fuels are not prohibited.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 8
Q. Are green building approaches such as deconstruction and reused materials, light pollution, indoor
environmental quality, gray-water reuse, rainwater harvesting, electric vehicle chargers, solar-ready
roofs, and others a part of the green building policy?
A. The initial focus of the green building policy is energy and water, as both of these impact carbon
emissions and relate to recommendations in the City and Town Comprehensive Plans. We
recognize the importance of other green building characteristics and will recommend that these
be examined in the future. The initial focus of the policy is limited to energy (and, specifically,
carbon emissions) and water.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 9
2 Green Building Policy Study and
Social Impacts Study
2.1 Goals
Goals for energy efficiency, renewables, and reductions in carbon emissions are emerging at the
national, state, and local levels.
Global sustainability efforts are aimed at meeting or exceeding the ambitions of the Paris Climate
Agreement signed by all countries except the United States, which will require a reduction of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 80% or more by 2050.
Nationally, the voluntary Architecture 2030 Challenge advocates for all new construction and major
renovation buildings to be “carbon-neutral” buildings in 2030. Carbon neutral buildings are defined to
be buildings that use no fossil fuel, greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting energy to operate. The schedule of
targets for Architecture 2030 is:
●70% GHG-emitting, energy consumption reduction below the regional (or country)
average/median for that building type.
●80% in 2020
●90% in 2025
●Carbon-neutral in 2030 (using no fossil fuel GHG emitting energy to operate)
New York State has also adopted the goal of decreasing GHG emissions 80% by 2050, as well as the
mid-term goal of reducing emissions 40% by 2030. In 2015, New York adopted its important and current
“50 by 30” renewable energy goal, which targets 50% of the State’s electricity to come from renewable
sources like solar and wind power by the year 2030. Other state goals include a 23% decrease in energy
consumption in existing buildings from 2012 levels, also by 2030. (https://energyplan.ny.gov/)
The state of California’s revised Title 24 energy code includes ambitious energy-related performance
requirements and goals for residential and commercial buildings. It states that all residential buildings
must be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and all commercial buildings must achieve ZNE by 2030. The
code applies to retrofit projects that pass certain thresholds. The California Energy Commission and the
California Public Utilities Commission jointly released a New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan
2015-2020. This plan outlines the path for reaching the residential ZNE goals and key strategies to get
there, including building awareness of value and benefits of ZNE, and aligning regulations, policies,
incentives, etc.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 10
At the local level, the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County all have goal of 80%
reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. The Tompkins County Energy Roadmap was created to evaluate
the local energy resources in the area and develop scenarios to meet the county’s greenhouse gas
emission reduction goal and projected energy needs through 2050. The report recommends
constructing new buildings that are extremely energy efficient, aiming for a 70% reduction in energy use
compared to the national median for comparable buildings, and increasing to net zero carbon emissions
between 2030 and 2050, which is in line with the nationwide goals of Architecture 2030 and the Ithaca
2030 District . Another recommendation is a 35% reduction in energy use in existing buildings through
retrofits and upgrades by 2050.
2.2 Criteria of a Successful Green Building Policy
In short, a successful green building policy should be FAIR:
●Flexible: Allow flexibility and creativity for developers, building design professionals, and
builders.
●Affordable: Maximize positive social impacts and minimize negative social impacts. Most
importantly, but not exclusively, should allow for affordable buildings, to allow home-ownership
and affordable rents.
●Impactful: Result in buildings that measurably use less energy and reduce carbon emissions.
●Reachable: Not add unreasonably to work for City and Town building departments, developers,
design professionals, and builders.
A successful green building policy should also:
●Be adaptable, to change in coming years, as carbon emission goals become more ambitious.
●Complement the existing New York State energy code.
●Deal with new buildings as well as renovations.
●Harmonize with other energy programs, such as NYSERDA, PACE financing, Federal tax credits,
etc.
●Promote best practices in energy-efficient design and construction, to show the path forward as
the energy code itself becomes more challenging, and to serve as a model for other
municipalities.
2.3 Social Impacts
As we consider options for a green building policy, it is important to keep in mind possible social
impacts. Some of these include:
●Human Health: Reduced air pollution is good for human health and the health of the planet, in
the broadest sense, with benefits ranging from reduced lung disease to reduced impacts of
climate change.
●Lower energy costs: Lower energy costs are a major benefit of a green building policy. And
energy costs are not only those of building owners, but also of tenants in rented spaces. Energy
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 11
costs are also often borne by building owners who did not develop a building, and so who were
not responsible for its first cost.
●Construction and Living Costs: Construction costs have generally been viewed as being higher
for green buildings, resulting in higher costs of buildings, housing, mortgages, and/or rent for
tenants. Interestingly, and importantly, there are a number of energy improvements that also
reduce the construction cost of buildings. These are addressed in a separate discussion in this
report and are a major component of the proposed policy.
●Maintenance costs: Some green building improvements reduce maintenance costs. For
example, more efficient lighting can mean fewer light fixtures, and so fewer lamps to replace.
Also, LED lamps last longer than other types of lighting, and so replacement labor is reduced.
Other improvements, such as solar photovoltaic systems, increase maintenance costs.
●Transportation Equity: Locating buildings in urban areas and close to public transportation
reduces both the carbon emissions from, and the costs of transportation.
●Resilience: In general, green buildings are generally more resilient, in other words they will stand
up better to storms, power outages, and other unusual scenarios. Most importantly,
energy-efficient buildings will stay warmer for much longer (for example, for days instead of
hours) during winter power outages, and will stay cooler for longer during summer power
outages.
●Security: There are not many links between green building policy and security, but there are a
few. For example, motion sensors for outdoor lighting save energy and are viewed as being good
to ward away intruders.
●Safety: Insofar as green buildings use less fossil fuels, the risk for poisoning from carbon
monoxide or explosion from natural gas or other fossil fuels is reduced. Several hundred people
die in the U.S. each year from either carbon monoxide poisoning or gas explosions.
●Jobs: Green building creates new jobs in the design and construction industry.
2.3.1 Do green buildings cost more?
High-performance buildings are estimated to cost between 0 and 15% more than minimally
code-compliant buildings. Generally, the higher the energy efficiency (in other words, the lower the
energy use), the higher the cost. Examples, drawn from local projects, are shown in Figure 14.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 12
Figure 14. Relationship between energy use and incremental construction cost.
Buildings meeting high-efficiency passive house standards (approximately 24 EUI) are estimated to cost
2-6% more than conventional buildings.
Buildings that are zero-energy (0 EUI) are estimated to cost 10-15% more than conventional buildings.
As a reality check, if a conventional building were supplied with 100% of its energy from commercially
available solar energy, without any other building improvements the added cost would be 14%, using
prices for currently-available solar photovoltaic systems.
Added costs for energy-efficient construction continue to drop, for two reasons:
a. The above estimates do not account for energy improvements that not only reduce energy use
but also reduce construction cost. See the separate discussion of affordable energy
improvements. If affordable energy improvements are chosen, their savings in construction cost
can be applied to the added cost of improvements that do add cost to a building, but the overall
added cost will be less than 10-15% for a zero-energy building. The potential for affordable
high-performance design and construction are shown with two points on the above graph.
Ecovillage TREE’s 4-story apartment building, with 15 apartments, delivered extremely
low-energy performance (EUI = 9, viewed as close to zero-energy) at a construction cost 5% LESS
than a typical equivalent building. And a single-family home on Perry City road is operating at
zero-energy performance despite costing only 10% more to build than a comparable home.
b. The costs of individual components of high-performance buildings are dropping as demand
increases. Examples of these are shown in Figure 15. Solar photovoltaic system costs have
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 13
dropped by over 75% over the past seven years. Air source heat pump costs have dropped by
over 60% over the past seven years, and it is strongly believed that costs will continue to drop as
demand increases. LED lamp costs have dropped by over 60% in the last four years alone.
Figure 15. The dropping costs of energy technologies.
With net-zero buildings being built for less than 15% over the cost of than conventional buildings, and
with the costs of energy-efficiency and renewable energy still dropping steadily, we predict that net-zero
buildings will cost less than 5% more than conventional buildings, as the market for net-zero buildings
grows, and could even be built at no additional cost, if attention is directed to affordability through
improvements that both reduce energy use and reduce construction cost.
Another lens through which costs can be viewed is as life cycle costs, accounting not only for the “first”
cost, or capital cost, but accounting also for operating costs, including energy and maintenance. Viewed
through this lens, the life cycle cost of energy-efficient buildings is typically shown to be lower than the
life cycle cost of conventional buildings. This lens is convincing to some early adopters, but is typically
not convincing to most developers. Since the operating costs of buildings typically do not fall on
developers, but rather on tenants and on future building owners (either directly or indirectly), the lower
life cycle cost of energy-efficient buildings can be viewed as a consumer protection issue, in addition to
being an environmental issue. (https://www.wbdg.org/resources/life-cycle-cost-analysis-lcca)
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 14
2.4 Certifications
The built environment has extensive direct and indirect impacts on our environment. Whether during
demolition, construction or operation, either in the residential and commercial sector, all building types
use significant natural resources, require embodied energy (energy used in making construction
materials), create waste, and, most significantly, use energy during their lifetime. However, one way to
urge movement toward a more sustainable building design practice is through green building
certifications. These certifications are a set of independent third-party guidelines and criteria against
which the design, construction, and/or performance of a building are evaluated.
Green building certifications offer several benefits:
1. The criteria and threshold requirements end up guiding local energy codes in the long run or
even being integrated (e.g. HERS into the NYS IECC for homes).
2. They serve as high-performance building best practice guidelines.
3. They allow people the opportunity to do better-than-code design and construction, and so
obtain a certificate to be proud of, be seen as a model and be used as inspiration.
4. Certifications can be used as mandatory requirements, and have been by such entities as
universities or municipalities. For example, the City of Evanston, Illinois, requires that
city-owned/city-financed commercial or residential buildings over a certain square footage be
LEED-Silver certified.
5. Certifications can be used as a quality control check and so help that project goals are delivered.
It is possible for a high-performance building project to get off track and not meet goals, and so
certifications provides checkpoints, with third party verification.
6. Environmental stewardship.
7. For positive community relations, to show that a developer is a good neighbor and cares about
their building.
8. It is common that most of the standards are created through a consensus process and evolve
through a three-year development cycle, so they are well-vetted, and periodically update.
While there are plenty of advantages, there are several concerns about green building certifications.
Chiefly, the two common criticisms not to pursue a certification (such as LEED) are the perception of
increased construction cost and the documentation path is long and arduous. It has also been reported
that some owners and developers argue that certifications do not deliver on the results due to the lack
of post-occupancy reporting and bridging the gap between design and performance. In some cases, it
has even been suggested that plaques should not be issued until a building can prove actual energy
usage. The Living Building Challenge certification has taken this step and grants certification after one
full year of data has been submitted. There also seems to be a trend of clients wanting “certifiable”
projects but not actually wanting to commit to a certification. A lot of the same reasons mentioned
above apply in the motivation for not pursuing a certification and cost is always a huge contributing
factor. It seems the perception of cost could be misplaced, however. For instance, much of the
incremental cost is doing the documentation, energy modeling, etc. which would be necessary to verify
performance goals are met regardless of pursuing a certification or not. Meeting and project
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 15
coordination are also time and money spent, but a necessary requirement for any high-performance
building. A certification can keep the project team accountable and on track to help achieve their
ultimate performance goals. It could also be the natural tendency of a team to jump into a program
checklist with a narrow “checklist mentality” ,and so providing a shortsighted interpretation of
requirements and goals. Instead, success can be more deeply achieved if a project team approaches
certification from a holistic standpoint, keeping broader goals in mind, and even by defining who they
are as an organization and what they want to stand for in their project.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a significant number of building certifications and programs that
have been rolled out. Some have gained traction and others came and fizzled out. Several certification
programs have been more successful, and in fact transformative in the built environment. We have
examined many of these certification programs, both for residential and commercial buildings, including
LEED, EPA Energy Star, DOE Zero Energy Ready Home, HERS, Passive House, and others.
In considering certifications, we also recognize the energy code as a type of certification. Developed by
the International Codes Council, the International Energy Conservation Code is the basis for energy code
requirements in New York State. The state typically adopts the IECC with minor state-specific
modifications. The latest version was adopted in October 2016, and is based on the 2015 version of the
IECC. The next IECC version is already due in 2018, and might well be adopted by New York State.
In parallel, NYSERDA recently developed a “stretch” energy code, based on the IECC, but even more
energy-efficient. Developed in code-ready language, the stretch code is intended to be ready for use by
municipalities in New York State to take energy efficiency performance beyond the current code to
further reduce the impact of buildings on the environment. The main objective is to produce a model
code that is adoptable with minimal changes by local governments and that is one cycle ahead of the
current New York State energy code. The final language was originally set to be issued in 2017, but has
been delayed. We believe that the stretch energy code will be roughly 10% more energy-efficient than
the current energy code. Work has already begun on the next stretch energy code, to be ready to roll
out in conjunction with the 2018 IECC.
In choosing possible certifications, a variety of criteria should be considered:
●Ease of compliance
●Ease of reviewing/approving compliance
●Cost
●Use of independent third party verifiers
●Impact on design and construction schedule
●Energy and water use reductions
2.5 Overall Approach
There are many options for green building policies. The diagram below somewhat arbitrarily arranges
these on a continuum from “carrot” (positive incentives) to “stick” (code requirements, mandates, etc.):
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 16
Experience with other government and utility energy programs has generally found that a single
approach to reducing energy use or carbon emissions is not as effective as a balanced and
comprehensive multifaceted approach. For example, code requirements can be ineffective unless
combined with training for design professionals, contractors, and code officials. Otherwise, new code
requirements are not complied with, even if they are law.
Market penetration is important to evaluate and predict for any policies under consideration. It is
important to recognize that experience with high-performance buildings, so far, has primarily been on a
demonstration basis, targeting “early adopters”. We see that LEED, widely regarded to have been a huge
success, has nonetheless only seen market penetration in the 2-3% range, for new buildings. By using
incentives such as rebates, states have achieved almost 12% average market penetration with the
Energy Star program for new homes. Penetration for the Energy Star program for new homes has been
higher in a small number of states, as high as 42% in Maryland and 60% in Arizona, but the highest in our
northeast climate has only been 12%, in Pennsylvania.
The urgency to respond to the effects of climate change is calling for us to move from demonstrations
and early adoption to widespread implementation. The only approach that can guarantee broad market
penetration is through code requirements. Incentives can be used to supplement mandated code
requirements, to accelerate the process and to ease the cost burden.
We propose a policy that combines many of the approaches listed above including a strong mandate.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 17
2.6 Timing of Interventions / Processes
Another aspect of policy interventions and processes is their timing. For new buildings, options may be
visualized as follows. The interventions shown are for example only, and do not represent final
recommendations for policies. What is important is that early interventions have the greatest chance of
impacting projects.
2.7 Fossil Fuels
Should fossil fuels be discouraged as heating fuels as part of a city/town policy?
A natural question in considering policies to reduce and eventually eliminate carbon emissions in the
City and Town is whether to discourage the use of fossil fuels as heating fuels for space and water
heating. Fossil fuels used for space and water heating make up a large fraction of the city and town’s
carbon emissions. Fossil fuels are also higher in carbon emissions than other forms of space and water
heating, such as heat pumps, and this difference will only increase as the electric grid is increasingly
composed of more renewably-generated electricity.
We examine the pros and cons of discouraging fossil fuels for space and water heating:
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 18
2.7.1 Pros of Discouraging Fossil Fuels
●Reduce carbon emissions
●Reduce risk of stranded assets: New fossil fuel infrastructure may well only end up lasting a few
decades as a transition to electricity is strongly anticipated.
●Consumer protection: As the cost of heat pumps has come down and is now roughly at parity
with fossil fuel systems, there is no longer an installed-cost (construction cost) benefit to fossil
fuel heating systems. For some fossil fuels, such as fuel oil and propane, consumers suffer
significantly increased energy costs, at no benefit in lower construction cost.
●Safety - reduced risk of carbon monoxide poisoning and explosions from gas leaks
●Support NYSEG’s new pilot project, which has the goal of providing adequate natural gas service
to the region without building a new gas pipeline. A big part of this effort is to reduce gas use in
current and future buildings.
2.7.2 Cons of Discouraging Fossil Fuels
●If natural gas prices drop or if electricity prices rise, we might risk preventing the lowest-cost
heating fuel.
2.7.3 Basis for Discouraging Fossil Fuels
Historically, consumer protection has been a widely justified basis for banning or limiting certain heating
systems. The energy code, for example, significantly limits the use of electric resistance heat, primarily
because it is so expensive for consumers.
There is an emerging consensus that we will need to electrify our buildings. As a result, New York State
has new incentives for both ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps. This essentially
discourages the use of fossil fuels for space heating.
Architecture 2030 has set as a goal the elimination of fossil fuels in new buildings by 2030.
2.7.4 Options for Discouraging Fossil Fuels
Options for discouraging fossil fuels include:
●Providing incentives for non-fossil options, such as heat pumps.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 19
●Using a rating system that accounts for carbon emissions, that gives points for non-fossil
alternatives such as heat pumps. Therefore, if gas is chosen to be used, a building would need to
be measurably more energy-efficient in other ways.
Recommendation: We are discouraging fossil fuels through a point system, for which additional points
are obtained if fossil fuels are not used.
2.8 Benchmarking
Should a benchmarking ordinance be a part of a green building policy?
As the old adage goes, “if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” Benchmarking is the collecting,
reporting, and sharing of measured energy usage in buildings. This data is typically reported annually
through the free online tool EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager, and allows you to compare energy
usage against other buildings. The purpose of benchmarking and other transparency policies is to bring
awareness of building energy consumption and performance and identify opportunities to help inform
building owners/operators and tenants how to make their buildings more efficient.
New York City adopted Local Law 84 (NYC Benchmarking Law) in 2010, the first energy benchmarking
requirement of its kind. Many other States and municipalities have since adopted a benchmarking and
transparency policies as a way to quantify and evaluate building energy usage their building stock.
The advantages of a benchmarking ordinance is that it is good for seeing where buildings are, for
establishing best practices and “benchmarks”, and for encouraging (some would say “shaming”) building
owners to design and operate more efficient buildings. Another advantage is to provide better data to
enable better policy around reducing building energy use.
Disadvantages of considering benchmarking as a green building policy include that it is really more of an
“existing building” policy, rather than a policy for new buildings, which is the focus of this study. In
other words, benchmarking is not something that is captured on design drawings and submitted to the
building department for review, in order to get a building permit. Also, a benchmarking program is fairly
time-consuming to define and implement. As implemented in other cities, such as New York,
benchmarking is only applied to larger commercial buildings. So benchmarking might not be able to be
cost-effectively implemented for all buildings.
Recommendation: We are not recommending a benchmarking requirement in the green building policy,
because it applies to existing buildings more than to new buildings. We strongly recommend that a
benchmarking policy be examined separately.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 20
2.9 Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) - New Buildings: Local
examples of what is possible and is already being done.
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) maintains a unique database of energy performance for
their portfolio of buildings. Because INHS builds locally, is committed to high-performance buildings, and
is committed to affordability and other positive social impacts, this dataset can be a helpful reference
for the green building policy effort.
INHS is a not-for-profit, specializing in affordable housing . INHS recently expanded its service area from
the City of Ithaca to all of Tompkins County. Their buildings include a variety of low-rise wood-frame
multi-family buildings, as well as medium-rise masonry buildings such as Breckenridge Place.
A sample of new buildings from the last 10 years found an average Energy Use Index (EUI) of 44. This is
highly energy-efficient, approximately equal to the current energy code, even though the buildings were
all designed and built before the new code. EUI’s range from 33 to 65. All of the buildings in the sample
were designed and built to high-performance standards such as Energy Star or LEED, except one.
Interestingly, the one building that was not designed and built to a high-performance standard is the
one that has the highest EUI (65), and the EUI for which is measurably higher than all the others: The
second-highest EUI is 49.
For reference, the current average local multifamily building stock has an EUI of 78, and the average new
multifamily building likely, designed to the fairly efficient energy code of 2016, has an EUI of
approximately 44. The Passive House standard is approximately 23, and the current Architecture 2030
target (through 2020) is approximately 24.
INHS reports that their strategies for green building design and construction include: Air sealing, added
insulation, high efficiency heating (better than code), high efficiency appliances (ENERGY STAR), and high
efficiency lighting (LED, etc.).
Takeaways from this analysis include:
1.High-performance design and construction is feasible locally, and indeed is already being done.
2.INHS’s data set confirms that high-performance certifications such as Energy Star and LEED
appear to work. And a building by the same reputable developer that was not certified did not
deliver the same level of energy efficiency. The best practices and quality control that
accompany certifications do appear to deliver energy efficiency.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 21
2.10 Affordability-Driven Energy Efficiency Approach
There is an important but perhaps not widely-recognized group of energy improvements to buildings
that interestingly (and perhaps counter-intuitively) both reduces construction cost, and reduces energy
use. There is another group of improvements that is generally cost-neutral, while, again, reducing
energy use. Examples of cost-reducing and cost-neutral improvements include:
●Building orientation (optimize for solar gain)
●Reducing floor area
●Reducing surface area (simple shape)
●Using ductless air source heat pumps, which appear to be close to parity for construction cost
with conventional systems for many types of buildings, and for which prices continue to drop
●Using fewer light fixtures due to reduced lighting loads, resulting from optimized design
●Combining multiple uses or tenants in one building rather than in several smaller buildings
●Reducing window size and quantity (reduce “window-to-wall” ratio). This does not mean
eliminating windows, but rather avoiding over-glazing, while maintaining views and daylighting.
See discussion below.
These affordable energy improvements may not be widely recognized because they are not incentivized
by government and utility energy programs, and so are not widely promoted. In fact, it is not possible to
incentivize them. How can one provide a tax credit or rebate for something that costs less to install?
A small number of these affordable energy improvements have started to find their way into codes and
standards. For example, the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code, which serves as the basis for
NY State’s 2016 energy code, limits the window-to-wall ratio of commercial buildings to 30% (with some
exceptions allowed). LEED version 4 provides extra credits for homes that are smaller than a reference
(typical) size, which varies by the number of bedrooms, and conversely penalizes homes that are bigger.
This requirement also appears in other residential high-performance standards (Energy Star, DOE
Zero-Ready Homes, etc.).
We increasingly see examples of these affordable improvements in high-performance buildings. For
example, the Ecovillage Tree common building, a 20,000 SF four-story with 15 apartments and common
areas (common area kitchen, laundry, community area, etc.) was built for a remarkably affordable
$124/SF (including foundation, structural, interior finishes, siding, mechanical, electrical including the
service/distribution/lighting, plumbing, stairs, elevator, insulation and soundproofing, the common
kitchen, doors and windows, sprinkler system, and permits). (See References: Green Energy Incentives,
p. 18.) The building adopted a number of these cost-reducing improvements, such as:
●Reduced surface area (simple shape)
●Smaller apartment size. Studio apartments in TREE are 450 SF, compared to the national
average new studio size of 512 SF in 2015; one-bedroom apartments in TREE are 690 SF,
compared to the national average new one-bedroom apartment size of 751 SF.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 22
●Low window-to-wall ratio
(https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/us-average-apartment-size-trends-downward/)
Benefits of affordability-driven energy improvements include:
●Lower energy use
●Lower construction cost
●Complements the energy code and high-performance standards, such as LEED. For example, as
the energy code becomes more stringent over time, the affordability-driven improvements
deliver additional energy savings.
●Promotes best practices
●Savings persist well over time
●Adapt to energy code changes well over time
●Prevent pushback from those who are concerned that reducing energy use drives building costs
up.
●Innovative – we are not aware of any jurisdiction (federal, state, local) that has tried anything in
this area, other than the two examples mentioned earlier (commercial energy code limit of
window-to-wall ratio, and LEED’s credits for avoiding large homes).
A description of improvements that deliver more significant energy savings follows.
2.10.1 Reduce building size
A smaller building uses both less energy and costs less. The impact of smaller buildings on energy use is
almost linear, due to energy uses that scale with size: heating, cooling, lighting, etc.: A 10% smaller
building is expected to use slightly less than 10% less energy, as some energy uses remain constant
regardless of building size.
Are smaller buildings acceptable? This is obviously an owner-specific question. For example, the size of
the average new American home ballooned from 1,660 SF in 1973 to over 2,600 SF in 2016, before
reportedly beginning to become smaller again. Homes overseas are significantly smaller: 1,200 SF in the
Netherlands, 1,000 SF in Japan, and 800 SF in the U.K. LEED and other high-performance residential
building standards recognize the importance of building size, and provides credits for smaller homes.
Promoting smaller buildings is only possible for those building types that have a metric for size: number
of bedrooms for homes and apartments, hotel room size, etc. The reference (typical) building size for
residential buildings is shown in Appendix B. The reference hotel room size is 330 square feet
(https://www.orourkehospitality.com/average-hotel-room-size-is-shrinking/).
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 23
2.10.2 Placing heating/cooling systems within the heated space
Many heating/cooling systems are placed outside the heated space (on roofs, in attics, in unheated
basements, in crawl spaces, etc.), and as a result lose significant energy. Even when an unheated
basement is located inside the thermal envelope, losses of 10% or more are typical.
2.10.3 Reducing hot water energy use
High-efficiency water fixtures typically do not cost more than regular-efficiency fixtures. EPA’s Water
Sense program requires water flow rates that are 20% less than required by code for shower heads, and
30% less than required by code for bathroom faucets.
Hot water energy savings could be further delivered through requirements for Energy Star ratings for
major water-using appliances, such as dishwashers and clothes washers, at modest cost increase.
In a simplified analysis of a 2000 square foot house, reducing hot water energy use by 20% reduces the
overall building energy use by 8%. This would be more applicable for buildings with significant shower
and faucet hot water use (homes, apartments, hotels), and less applicable for buildings with low hot
water use such as offices, and so would likely only be offered as an option to applicable buildings
(residential and hotels).
2.10.4 Reduce surface area
Buildings with high exterior surface area require more energy to heat and cool, because they have more
exterior surface area through which heat is transferred. Such buildings also cost more to build. Reducing
a building’s ratio of surface area to floor area by 20% is estimated to reduce overall building energy use
by 10%. This can be done by avoiding complex shapes, avoiding overly-tall ceilings, and other
approaches.
2.10.5 Avoiding overlighting
Most commercial buildings are overlit, far exceeding recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America (IESNA). By sizing lighting correctly, on a space-by-space basis, buildings can
be right-lit instead of overlit. Right-lighting reduces construction cost by avoiding the installation of
more light fixtures than necessary. Right-lighting also reduces maintenance costs over time.
Right-lighting also reduces energy costs for air conditioning, and can reduce the construction cost for air
conditioning systems as well, by allowing smaller systems.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 24
Reducing overlighting by 25% is projected to reduce overall energy use in commercial buildings by 8%.
Savings in residential buildings are less because lighting use in homes is far less than in commercial
buildings.
To be clear, this does not mean reducing lighting below levels recommended nationally by the
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Rather, it means avoiding overlighting, in full compliance with
IES-recommended lighting levels.
2.10.6 Low window-to-wall ratio
Windows cost more per unit area than the wall they displace, due to a combination of the window and
the framing required around the window. Windows also cause high energy losses due to heat transfer,
despite these losses being very modestly offset by gains from daylighting, gains which are themselves
being lost due to the development of energy efficient lighting such as LED as well as efficient lighting
controls. There are also modest solar gains from south-facing windows, if not shaded, but these accrue
only if the south-facing windows are optimally sized.
In a small sample survey of new commercial buildings in Tompkins County, high-performance buildings
(TREE common house, HOLT Architects new office) were all found to have a window-to-wall ratio less
than 20%, and standard code-compliant buildings (a hotel, an apartment building, and an office building)
were all found to have a window-to-wall ratio over 30%. In a small sample of residential buildings,
findings were the same.
To show the power of the window-to-wall ratio, in a simplified analysis of a 2000 square foot house,
reducing the window-to-wall ratio from 30% to 20% reduces the overall building energy use by a
significant 8%.
As mentioned, the new energy code limits commercial buildings to 30% window to wall ratio, with
exceptions that allow it to go up to 40%.
A frequent concern voiced about lowering window-to-wall ratio is “Will the building be dark? Will it lack
in views or daylighting? Will it be unattractive?”
Green building standards are clear that, for views, we do not need a window-to-wall ratio of 30% or
more, that 20% is sufficient, and that we only need views in regularly occupied spaces. The green
building standard BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)
defines views as being able to see the sky from desk height, and further defines a “view out” as being a
minimum window-to-wall ratio of 20%. And a case can also be made that views do not need to be
provided for all types of spaces. Views might be considered optional for spaces such as mechanical
rooms, laundry rooms, other utility-type spaces, corridors, stairwells, bathrooms, and more. Similarly,
the green building wellness certification system WELL (International Well Building Institute) only
requires a minimum 20% window-to-wall ratio, and only in regularly occupied spaces (which would
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 25
mean an overall minimum window-to-wall ratio less than 20%), in addition to proximity of workstations
to windows.
Large windows are also not needed for daylighting. Gains from daylighting are offset by window thermal
losses, and there is an optimum window size and shape for maximum energy efficiency. With the
introduction of extremely high-efficiency lighting such as LED, and artificial lighting increasingly
controlled (dimmed or turned off), the optimum window-to-wall ratio for energy efficiency has
plummeted, and is likely far below 20% for most spaces.
Buildings with modest window-to-wall ratios can still have attractive facades. Despite the TREE common
house having a modest window-to-wall ratio (approximately 16%), the building has a dramatic and
attractive south-facing façade with significant windows:
The building achieved a low window-to-wall ratio by locating fewer windows in rooms that do not need
windows, and limiting glazing on the north side, east, and west side of the building. Here is a photo of
the building’s west elevation:
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 26
Many attractive buildings have window-to-wall ratios even lower than 15%. This is common in buildings
such as the beautiful brownstones in the cities of the Northeast. Covering our buildings with glazing is
relatively recent phenomenon. Consider a brownstone in Brooklyn:
Its front facade window-to-wall ratio is 29% (shown above), its two sides have no windows (due to
common walls), its rear facade has a window-to-wall ratio of 22%, and its overall window-to-wall ratio is
14%.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 27
2.11 Renewables
Renewable energy installed on or near buildings is referred to as on-site or site-located (as distinct from
remote-located) and includes, most commonly, solar photovoltaic electricity. Less common is solar
thermal energy (mostly solar hot water, but can also include solar-heated hot air). Another option is
wind-generated electricity.
Renewable energy has been growing rapidly, and is expected to continue to grow.
Why not simply allow or require renewable energy to provide all the energy needed by a building,
without requiring the building to be energy-efficient, in other words not requiring good insulation,
windows, heating, etc.? There are several reasons to not just allow renewable energy to meet all a
building’s energy needs, without better buildings:
●Renewable energy systems can fail, making a building revert to relying on non-renewable
backup energy.
●Renewable energy systems take energy, themselves, to be fabricated. This is referred to as
embodied energy, and offsets some of the savings of the renewable energy system.
●Renewable energy systems cost money to maintain, and this cost offsets some of the energy
cost savings.
In order to address these limitations of renewable energy systems, it is not unusual to encourage a
balance of efficient building design and renewable energy. The voluntary Architecture 2030 system, for
example, limits renewable energy to 20% of its goal to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2030.The 20% is
relative to a baseline of energy use in the early 2000's, for each of a variety of building types, and for
different geographic locations.
Requiring the use of on-site renewable energy is problematic because not all buildings are suited to
on-site renewable energy. Many buildings are shaded by adjacent buildings or other things.
As a result, we recommend:
1. Encourage renewable energy systems, but limit the credit given for them, to prevent a building
from over-relying on renewable energy. This approach is consistent with most widely-accepted
green building certification schemes, such as Architecture 2030 and LEED.
2. Allow either on-site renewable energy or remote renewable energy.
2.12 Incentives
Financial incentives are a common way to promote energy efficiency. For example, the federal
government gives a 30% investment tax credit for solar energy, and furthermore allows accelerated
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 28
depreciation for commercial capital investments in solar energy systems. NYSERDA gives rebates for
solar energy systems. New York State furthermore gives its own 25% state tax credit for residential solar
energy systems, with a cap of $5,000.
When considering financial incentives, it is important to target the incentive in such a way as to motivate
people to invest in energy savings (incentives need to be sufficient to change behavior) but not so high
as to waste taxpayer money. We have seen government and utility programs in which energy efficiency
is given away, and yet some people still do not participate. We have also seen programs in which
incentives were so small that participation went to zero.
The following conceptual graph illustrates these issues.
As mentioned earlier, even successful incentive programs typically do not achieve deep market
penetration rates. For example, the combined incentives for solar photovoltaic systems have exceeded
50% of the installation cost, for over 10 years, and these have been sufficiently attractive to launch the
industry in a substantial way (almost 80,000 completed projects in New York State by 2017), but
cumulative market penetration is still less than 5%
(https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/NY-Sun/Solar-Data/Solar-Data-Summary-and-Tre
nds).
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 29
A specific technology can be supported, such as high efficiency lighting, high efficiency heating, or
renewable energy systems. Or incentives can be on a whole-building basis, for example if a building
achieves a certain LEED score or HERS score. Finally, incentives could be awarded if buildings achieve a
specific number of points under a custom scoring system.
It is also important to consider other incentive programs, where possible, such as those offered by
NYSERDA, New York State government (other than NYSERDA), the federal government, local utilities
such as NYSEG, and others.
2.12.1 Reduction or fee waiver of Building Permit and/or Site Plan Review fees
Like many municipalities in New York State, both the City and Town of Ithaca, respectively, charge fees
for building permits and Site Plan Review (for projects subject to Site Plan Review). These fees are
typically established by resolution of the City’s Common Council or the Town’s Board. The City of Ithaca
currently charges $1.50 per $1,000 of construction cost for Site Plan Review as well as $7.00 per $1,000
of construction cost for a building permit. For example, a new seven-story, $11.5M commercial project
(approximately 75,000 square feet) adjacent to the Commons paid approximately $80,500 in Building
Permit fees as well as another $12,250 in Site Plan Review fees in 2014.
2.12.2 Amend City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) and Town Environmental
Quality Review (TEQR) Thresholds
The Department of Environmental Conservation, charged with overseeing the State’s Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) is currently conducting a review of those regulations. Proposed in the new
draft regulations (proposed 6 NYCRR §§ 617.5(c)(19)-(22)) is the reclassification of Infill Development
(occurring on previously disturbed sites) as a Type II Action. The rationale is that development on sites
that have been previously disturbed and that have existing infrastructure would categorically result in
significantly less environmental impact than developing undisturbed sites.
One action the City and Town could take independently – but complementary to the proposed SEQRA
amendments – would be to amend their respective local SEQRA thresholds – the City Environmental
Quality Review (CEQR) and Town Environmental Quality Review (TEQR) – to classify smaller projects
demonstrating energy and location efficiency as Type II Actions. For example, the City of Ithaca could
amend Chapter 176: Environmental Quality Review (§ 176-4 (k) to reclassify ‘Construction of 15 or more
residential units’ from a Type I Action to a Type II Action for projects that meet the following criteria: be
located within the ‘Walkable Neighborhoods – Green Building Policy Map’; commit to energy
benchmarking; and earn at least a minimum number points on the checklist. Of course, if the project
met other listed Type I Action thresholds, such as proximity to a Critical Environmental Area, the action
would still be Type I.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 30
2.13 Net-Zero Energy Buildings
Net-zero energy buildings use renewable energy to generate as much (or more) energy as they
consume, on an annual-average basis.
There are already multiple net-zero energy buildings in and near Tompkins County. Several homes in the
Ecovillage TREE neighborhood are net-zero. HOLT Architects new office was designed to net-zero, and in
practice is reportedly operating close to net-zero. A new home on Perry City Road was designed to
net-zero and appears to be operating at net-zero. Nearby, Lime Hollow has a new education center that
was designed to net-zero and is operating at net-zero.
Net-zero buildings using on-site renewable energy depend on the ability to site the renewable energy
system. This is not always possible. In most cases, the on-site renewable energy is solar energy, and
many buildings do not have either unshaded roof area or unshaded site area for adequate solar energy.
In these cases, off-site solar energy is now possible, through community solar or remote net-metering,
although these programs and offerings are new relatively new.
It might be noted that adequately sized and sited renewable energy systems also do not guarantee
net-zero operation. For example, if a renewable energy system fails, then a building might revert to
buying energy, and so no longer makes as much energy than it uses. For this reason, efficient buildings
are important. Architecture 2030, for example, limits the amount of renewable energy that can be used,
on its path to carbon-neutral buildings.
Our main questions relating to net-zero were:
1. Should we have a goal for net-zero being required for buildings?
2. If so, by when?
3. And, if so, what types of renewable energy will be required/allowed?
A possible guide to answer these questions is the Architecture 2030 program, which targets the year
2030 for carbon-neutral buildings, by incrementally increasing energy efficiency and renewables every
five years between the present and 2030. As the number of buildings that are already net-zero
increases steadily, and as we see that this is no longer an unreasonable or unaffordable goal, 2030 is
clearly realistic as a goal for net-zero.
Any net-zero goal must allow remote renewable energy, because not all buildings have access to
renewable resources such as on-site solar or wind power.
It is inevitable that we will need to end up requiring net-zero energy buildings. As populations grow and
communities develop, the only way to control carbon emissions in the long term is with net zero
buildings. We take our lead from Architecture 2030, which has set a goal of net zero by 2030, and from
the State of California, which is targeting 2020 for net-zero homes and 2030 for net-zero commercial
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 31
buildings. The Tompkins County Energy Roadmap also strongly affirmed the need for net-zero energy
new buildings.
2.14 Pulling it All Together: Recommendations
We recommend that a local ordinance be passed requiring that all new buildings, including gut
renovations and new additions, comply with the green building policy. Two compliance paths are
provided:
1. The Easy Pathemphasizes energy improvements that also reduce construction cost, such as
smaller building size. This is a point system. A building must meet 6 points.
2. The Whole-Building Pathallows more flexibility in building design. Commercial buildings must
obtain a minimum of 17 LEED Energy points, residential buildings must achieve a HERS score of
40 or less, or a minimum score of 80 Energy Efficient points using the National Green Building
Standard. Alternatively, all buildings may comply by designing and constructing to the Passive
House standard.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 32
All new buildings shall use efficient water fixtures:
Fixture Requirement Source
Toilet (including tank or flush
valve)
1.25 gpf EPA Water Sense
Urinal 0.5 gpf EPA Water Sense
Shower 2.0 gpm EPA Water Sense
Kitchen Faucet 1.8 gpm California Requirements
Bathroom Faucet 1.5 gpm EPA Water Sense
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve 1.28 gpm EPA Water Sense
Notes:
1. gpm: gallons per minute gpf: gallons per flush
2. Exception: Unless code requirements are more stringent, such as 0.5 GPM for faucets in public
bathrooms.
(It should be noted that some of the above requirements were recently adopted in the 2017 code
supplement. We have decided to keep the requirements, even though some are already mandatory,
because awareness of the new code requirements appears to be very low.)
In addition to the requirements of this policy, all new buildings shall still comply with the New York State
Energy Conservation Construction Code.
Where possible, roofs should be designed to be “solar-ready”: A. Maximize area available for solar
collection systems. For pitched roofs, place roof-mounted components or structures (plumbing vents,
exhaust fans, access hatches, etc.) on north-facing roof surfaces, to keep south-facing surfaces available
for solar collection systems. Where this is not possible, or on flat roofs, cluster roof-mounted
components and structures such as to allow the maximum possible contiguous area for solar collector
systems. B. Design roof structures to support future solar collector systems. C. Orient one roof surface to
the south, plus/minus 30 degrees, to maximize potential for solar energy.
2.14.1 Easy Path
A building must achieve a minimum of 6 points, from among the following. Each point represents a
reduction of 6-10% in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, very roughly.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 33
2.14.1.1 Points for Efficient Electrification:
These points are intended to reward reductions in carbon emissions with the use of efficient electric
technologies, which is expected to become increasingly lower in carbon emissions over time as the
electric grid becomes more renewable. The cost of these technologies are rapidly dropping, and in many
cases are already lower than fossil fuel technologies, or are expected to drop below the cost of fossil fuel
technologies. In many cases, higher product costs are offset by lower installation costs (no gas pipe
required, no venting required).
3 points (residential including both single and multifamily buildings, or 2 points (commercial buildings) -
use air source heat pumps for space heating. 4 points (residential including both single and multifamily
buildings) and 3 points (commercial) for ground source heat pumps or biomass heating systems. (Water
loop boiler/tower heat pumps do not comply, as these heat pumps rely on fossil fuels. Also, packaged
terminal heat pumps do not comply, because of their low energy efficiency.) Ventilation must also not
be fossil-fuel heated. To allow flexibility for small rooms, electric resistance heat is allowed for up to 10%
of the building’s projected annual space heating load. For more information on heat pumps and
biomass, see the Reference section, at the end of this report.
1 point (residential including both single and multifamily buildings, hotels, and dorms) - heat pump or
biomass water heaters
1 point (residential including both single and multifamily buildings) - use both electric stoves and
ventless heat pump clothes dryers. This point requires the use of heat pumps or biomass for space
heating, and additionally requires no fossil fuels in the building.
2.14.1.2 Points for Affordability Improvements:
●1 point - Building size more than 15% smaller than the reference size. See the table below for
residential buildings. The reference size is 330 SF for hotel rooms. Or: 2 points - Building size
more than 30% smaller than the reference size – see the table below for residential buildings, or
more than 30% smaller than 330 SF for hotel rooms. (Building size points are not available for
buildings other than residential or hotels.) For the purpose of this point, multifamily buildings
are defined as buildings with two or more units in a single building.
Conditioned (heated) floor area of reference home, by number of bedrooms, in square feet.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 34
●1 point - Heating systems in the heated space. Place heating/cooling systems inside actively
heated and finished spaces. No heating systems, ductwork, or water piping shall be located in
unheated or unfinished basements, in unheated attics, in crawl spaces, outdoors, on roofs, in
exterior wall cavities, above the ceiling of the top floor of a building, or through-wall such as
packaged terminal equipment or window-mounted systems. Outdoor units of split system heat
pumps may be located outdoors and there are no limitations on the location of refrigerant
piping. Examples of where equipment, ductwork, and water piping can be located: In heated
spaces, in interior wall cavities, in mechanical rooms that are not in unheated/unfinished
basements/attics/outdoors, in closets in finished spaces, above ceilings that are not on the top
floor of buildings.
●1 point - Simplify building shape. Exterior surface area divided by gross floor area is less than
the maximum value provided in the table below. For the exterior surface area, include the
above-grade exposed insulated surface, typically including above-grade walls, floor of vented
attics (or roofline if insulated at the roof), floors above vented crawl spaces. Include windows
and doors as part of walls, include skylights as part of roofs. Include exposed floors, such as
below a cantilever. Include walls between heated spaces and unheated spaces, such as between
a house and an attached garage. The table was developed for a simple rectangular building
shape for different ranges of building size (floor area), for an optimum number of stories,
assuming a 9 foot floor-to-floor height, with an allowance to give flexibility for slightly more
complex shapes or taller ceilings.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 35
●1 point - Right-lighting. Reduce overlighting (25% lower lighting power density than the energy
code). Perform photometric lighting design on a space-by-space basis, using the space-by-space
lighting power density method (not the whole-building method), designing to the mid-range of
IESNA foot-candle targets, unless the building is for primary use by the elderly. Construction
documents shall include a table of space-by-space lighting power density. Use LED lighting
where possible. Use reflective surfaces where possible, with a preferred target reflectance of
90% for ceilings, 70% for walls, and 50% for floors. Require motion sensors for all exterior
lighting, combined with photocells to ensure that lighting stays off during the day. Require
motion sensors for interior lighting in the following spaces: offices, conference rooms,
kitchenettes, corridors, stairwells, bathrooms, lobbies. Require short off-delay for occupancy
sensors (1 minute or less), and commissioning of lighting controls. This point is not available for
residential including single family and multifamily buildings, dorms, or hotels.
●1 point - Modest windows with views and natural light. Overall window-to-wall ratio less than
20%. Windows in individual regularly-occupied spaces are allowed to be more than 20%. For
calculations, include glazed portions of doors in the window area, but not opaque portions of
doors. Include glazed portions of curtain walls, but not spandrel/opaque areas.
2.14.1.3 Renewable Energy:
3 points - renewable energy capacity (4 points starting in 2025):
Residential buildings (single family and multifamily):
a. 1 point for each 1.2 kwh/sf/year (electric systems, e.g. solar photovoltaic)
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 36
b. 1 point for each 4.0 kBtu/sf/year (thermal systems, e.g. solar domestic hot
water)
Commercial buildings (including industrial):
a. 1 point for each 2.4 kwh/sf/year (electric systems, e.g. solar photovoltaic)
b. 1 point for each 8.0 kBtu/sf/year (thermal systems, e.g. solar domestic hot
water)
Renewable energy points are capped at 3 points maximum (4 points starting in 2025). For mixed
use buildings, pro-rate renewable energy required on the basis of ratio of residential and
commercial floor area. For example, if a proposed building is 80% residential and 20%
commercial, 1 point is obtained for each 1.44 kwh/sf/year of solar photovoltaic.
Off-site (remote) solar is allowed. Documentation must be provided for contractual
commitment to either ownership or long-term (20 years minimum) commitment.
2.14.1.4 Other Points:
1 point for lots developed at more than 7
dwelling units per acre density (the
threshold to support frequent transit
service). Projects should be built at this
density or greater to contribute to the
existing or future transit accessibility and
walkability. Non-residential development
can be converted to units by dividing the
area of conditioned space, in square feet,
by 1000.
1 point for being within 1/4 mile
(walking distance) to at least 5 of the
following destinations: schools, stores,
cafes/restaurants/pubs, dentist/doctor's
offices, libraries/community services, or
the development priority areas mapped
in the walkable neighborhoods map.
1 point - adaptive reuse. When a building is kept and re-purposed for a different use (for example, when
an old school is adapted for use as apartments). A gut renovation of a building and re-use for the same
purpose (e.g. old apartments are renovated) is not eligible for this point. Maintain at least 50% (based
on surface area) of the existing building structure and envelope.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 37
1 point - comply with the New York State Stretch energy code. (This will be increased to 2 points
if/when the next version of the energy code is released, anticipated to be in 2019, when the stretch
code targets over 15% energy reduction.)
2 points - Custom Energy Improvement. Can only be applied to buildings that do not use fossil fuels.
Reduce energy use by 1.2 kwh/SF/year per point (residential buildings, including multifamily) or 2.4
kwh/SF/year per point (commercial buildings). Cannot be provided by renewable energy savings.
Savings must be shown through energy analysis performed by an experienced energy professional. For
a baseline, use the NYS Energy Code, latest edition. If the baseline condition is not addressed by the NYS
Energy Code, use baseline conditions as defined in ASHRAE Standard 90 Appendix G, or RESNET HERS.
Savings must be calculated after applying all other proposed energy improvements to the proposed
design.
2.14.2 Whole Building Path
In lieu of accruing points, the developer can choose to comply with a recognized whole-building
high-performance certification, such as:
1. For commercial buildings, 17 energy points (Optimize Energy Performance) based on LEED
Version 4, to be demonstrated either with LEED review/certification or by other third party
certification of the energy model, such as NYSERDA. The energy model (printed complete input
and output reports) shall be submitted with the design documents with the application for a
building permit, with a statement by the energy modeler that the energy model meets the
requirements for 17 energy points based on LEED Version 4.
2. For low-rise residential buildings, RESNET HERS/ERI (with a maximum score of 40). Compliance
shall follow procedures defined for the ERI compliance path in the New York State Energy
Conservation Code.
3. For residential buildings (single-family, multifamily low-rise or high-rise): National Green
Building Standard (“NGBS”, also known as ICC/ASHRAE 700-2015) with a minimum of 80 NGBS
Energy Efficiency points. The professional documenting compliance will provide a statement
that the design meets the intent of a minimum 80 Energy Efficiency points per ICC/ASHRAE
700-2015, and documentation supporting these points.
4. For commercial or residential buildings, Passive House. Submit approved pre-certification from
PHIUS, according to the PHIUS+ 2015 Passive Building Standard: North America, when
submitting construction documents in application for a building permit.
This whole building compliance path allows more flexibility, but typically requires more insulation,
higher-efficiency heating and cooling, and extensive other energy improvements.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 38
2.14.3 Renovations and Additions
Gut renovations and additions over 500 square feet shall comply with the requirements for new
buildings (Easy Path or Whole Building Path). Additions shall be treated on their own, and not as part of
a larger building. For the window area point, treat the new common wall area (where the addition
meets the existing building) as part of the new addition’s exterior wall.
New additions less than 500 square feet shall comply with the 2016 New York State Stretch Energy
Code, in addition to the above requirements for water conservation.
Limited renovations, such as heating system replacement, lighting replacement, bathroom renovations,
kitchen renovations, etc. shall comply with the 2016 New York State Stretch Code, in addition to the
above requirements for water conservation.
Building owners are encouraged to replace fossil fuel space and water heating systems with heat pump
systems.
2.14.4 Exemptions
Consistent with the New York State energy code, historic buildings are exempt from the green building
policy. In renovation of a historic building, steps to reduce carbon emissions are encouraged that
preserve the historic fabric of the building, such as rehabilitation of windows, installation of heat pumps
for space and water heating, insulation and air sealing, and high-efficiency lighting where lighting needs
to be replaced.
2.14.4 Future
On January 1, 2025, the requirements are proposed to change to:
1. Easy path: 12 points
2. Whole building path:
a. LEED: 17 energy points (LEED version 4) AND 7 of the Easy Path points (excluding the
Stretch Energy Code and lighting point)
b. HERS Score Maximum 40, AND 7 of the Easy Path points (excluding the Stretch Energy
Code and lighting point), OR a HERS Score Maximum 20
c. National Green Building Standard (“NGBS”, also known as ICC/ASHRAE 700-2015) with a
minimum of 80 NGBS Energy Efficiency points, AND 7 of the Easy Path points (excluding
the Stretch Energy Code and lighting point)
d. Passive House, AND 3 of the Easy Path points (excluding the Stretch Energy Code and
lighting point)
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 39
On January 1, 2030, the requirements are proposed to further change to net-zero building designs that
are free of fossil fuels. The fossil-fuel-free requirement will allow exceptions for commercial cooking
and industrial applications for which no electric options are available. The standard by which net-zero is
defined will be established before January 1, 2024.
2.15 Compliance
A successful green building policy is one that does not place a significant burden on those who will
review and approve building planning, design, and construction. We propose the following compliance
documentation:
1. For the proposed point system, a checklist that shows which points are sought, and support for
each point. For example, if a developer is seeking the size credit for a house design, the checklist
would show the house area (square feet), number of bedrooms, required house size, and
proposed house size, to show that the house meets the size requirement.
2. For the proposed whole-building compliance, a report by an accredited third-party energy
consultant, at the time of planning review and again when applying for a building permit.
We propose that at the planning review phase, a preliminary green building checklist be submitted,
indicating which green compliance items are proposed/planned. This will serve to show the planning
department how compliance is planned, but will also serve to bring the green building requirements to
the attention of the developer and their design professionals. A final checklist will be required to be
submitted with the construction documents, prior to the building department issuing the building
permit.
2.16 Incentive Package Recommendations
In order to receive incentives a new building should meet a significantly higher bar to lead the building
community toward the long term goal of net zero energy. The proposed mandatory standards ratchet
up in 2025 and 2030. We propose that buildings seeking incentives be required to meet the proposed
2025 minimum level of points or whole building certification levels in the years before 2025, and starting
in 2025 buildings would need to meet the 2030 performance level to receive the incentive package.
After 2030 incentives for green building would phase out because all buildings would be required to be
net zero. In order to receive the incentive package building owners would also commit to sharing energy
use data by granting the city or town permission to access energy consumption data through NYSEG that
could be tracked in a future benchmarking program or evaluation study. Buildings would also be
required to be located within the priority area (see walkability map) and be 100% fossil fuel free.
The high bar for incentives and the strong municipal priority for meeting energy goals should result in a
broad and attractive package of incentives. Projects meeting these ambitious goals are providing a
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 40
significant community benefit and deserve recognition and municipal support. Incentives that could be
considered in a package include: the NYS Green Building Tax Exemption (more details on this are below),
priority application processing, designation as a Type 2 action in CEQRA and TEQRA, permit fee
reduction, height bonus, minimum parking reduction, and area requirements reduction (lot size,
setbacks, coverage).
Another possible incentive is a recognition system, such as an award and associated certificate, perhaps
given in conjunction with an existing program, such as the Pride of Ownership award. An administrative
fee could be charged for this recognition, in order to cover the costs of administering the awards.
2.17 Harmony With Other Requirements, Incentives, and Programs
The proposed green building policy harmonizes with other program requirements as follows:
1. PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) financing. PACE financing supports renewable energy
and energy efficiency improvements with financing that flows through property taxes. The
proposed policy would work fine with PACE financing. Affordability-related energy
improvements obviously do not require financing, because they lower construction costs instead
of adding to them.
2. NYSERDA. NYSERDA provides financial and other support for high-performance design and
construction. Homes and other low-rise residential construction meeting NYSERDA’s Tier III
program would meet the requirements for the whole-building compliance path, and so be
eligible for financial incentives. Buildings following the affordable-related energy improvements
would not be eligible for NYSERDA assistance but, again, do not need assistance because they
reduce construction cost.
3. TCIDA Energy Tax Abatement. The Tompkins County IDA has been offering an energy tax
abatement incentive for buildings that qualify for IDA tax abatements for economic
development, since 2016. The whole-building requirements for commercial buildings in this
proposed Green Building Policy are similarto the IDA requirements. The question arises, “If the
green building policy is roughly equal to the TCIDA requirements, why incentivize TCIDA
buildings?” Therefore, if this green building policy proceeds as proposed, TCIDA may want to
consider raising the bar for its incentives. For example, in the period until 2025, TCIDA may wish
to offer its energy tax incentives for projects that achieve the 2025 targets. Similarly, in 2025,
TCIDA may wish to again raise the bar to the 2030 targets. And in 2030, TCIDA could consider
eliminating the incentive.
4. Solar incentives (Federal Investment Tax Credit, state residential tax credit, NYSERDA
incentives). All these programs would assist in paying for renewable energy, if renewable
energy is used under the point system.
5. The Energy Code. The Energy Code is a requirement for all new buildings and renovations. The
proposed green policy harmonizes well with the Energy Code. Buildings meeting the
whole-building requirements would typically automatically comply with the code, and so not
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 41
need to submit separate compliance documentation. Buildings following the point system
would still need to comply with the energy code, but there are no conflicts, and the point
system only helps to comply with the energy code in several areas (window-to-wall ratio, water
use, etc.).
6. Tompkins County Green Energy Property Tax Exemption. In 2012, the county passed a county
property tax exemption for buildings that reach the LEED Silver, Gold, or Platinum certification
levels, in alignment with a state law that enables this exemption. Only two buildings have
reportedly obtained these exemptions. The proposed green building policy could potentially be
aligned with this existing property tax exemption as follows:
a. The city and town (and even the school district) could consider adopting the exemption.
2.18 Risks and Obstacles
As best practices become common practices, it is possible that developers could choose among
improvements they were planning to do anyway. These are considered to be “free riders.” However,
free ridership also happens with other approaches to energy efficiency, such as mandated requirements
(energy code) and incentivized requirements (tax credits, rebates, etc.).
Checking for compliance, in addition to the requirements of the energy code, could place an additional
burden on code officials, although Town and City code officials have indicated the burden would not be
significant. It might be possible for compliance to be self-certified by design professionals, using a
checklist, and then the code official only needs to double check compliance.
“Gaming” is another risk, in which developers or builders seek to circumvent requirements of the
proposed green building policy. For example, low-flow water faucets and shower heads could be
replaced with higher flow devices, after a building is built. Some points in the proposed point system can
be more easily gamed (for example, water flow), some points can be gamed but at some difficulty and
cost (for example, window size), and finally other points cannot be gamed (density/transportation,
building shape, building size). Some gaming should be anticipated, and so 100% compliance should not
be expected. Gaming is also possible with the regular energy code. The U.S. Department of Energy has
observed 80-90% compliance with the energy code.
2.19 Indoor Comfort and Health
Indoor comfort and health are cornerstones of green buildings. If the whole building compliance path is
chosen (LEED, Passive House, HERS), provisions are made within those certification systems to ensure
indoor environmental quality, even while energy use is reduced. If the point system is used as the
compliance path, none of the proposed points put indoor comfort or health at risk, and some points
improve comfort and health. For example, heat pumps eliminate risks of poisoning from carbon
monoxide, risks of explosion from leaking gas, and environmental hazards from leaking fuel oil or
propane.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 42
2.20 Items Not Included in the Green Building Policy
The green building field is vast, and areas of green buildings are almost endless. We made a difficult
decision to not include many aspects of green buildings in the policy at this time. Priority was given to
building improvements that reduce carbon emissions, in support of local, state, and national goals to
reduce carbon emissions.
For example, some green building certification systems give credit for electric-vehicle chargers and/or
for “solar-ready” buildings, buildings which have been designed and built to readily accommodate solar
systems in the future. These two items were discussed. While both have merits, it was decided to not
recommend either of them at this time, because neither guarantees substantial and actual reductions in
carbon emissions, and both add cost to building construction.
A wide variety of other possible green building features were discussed, such as wastewater re-use,
rainwater harvesting, indoor environmental quality, light pollution, building deconstruction, certified
wood, beauty, and many more. Again, for a first green building policy, it was decided to focus on
substantial reductions in carbon emissions, while strongly prioritizing building affordability. Other green
building features are important and have merit, and could be considered in the future.
2.21 Other Recommendations
Other recommendations coming out of this study include:
1. Examine a benchmarking and disclosure policy for the City and Town of Ithaca.
a. Review experience with benchmarking in other cities: Compliance, costs to administer,
benefits, shortfalls. Has benchmarking led to measurable decreases in carbon
emissions? Has benchmarking yielded data that facilitated policy or program changes?
b. Develop requirements/recommendations.
2. Undertake a similar study for existing buildings and develop an associated policy for reducing
carbon emissions in existing buildings. A possible focus could be on encouraging replacement of
heating systems as they reach the end of their useful life, insulating roofs and siding when they
reach the end of their useful life, replacing appliances with Energy Star appliances when they
reach the end of their useful life, etc.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 43
2.22 Green Building Policy Point System: Stress Test
As we consider a point-scoring system for a Green Building policy, how would recently-designed
buildings score on the system? Would the proposed point system work for known high-performance
buildings, in other words, would they have passed? Would the point system work for known
¬non-high-performance buildings, in other words, would they have failed? Would such a point system
have impacted designs? Do “better” buildings score higher? Would the point system be unusually
cumbersome and costly? We consider some examples.
2.22.1 Low-Rise Residential Buildings
Hemsin House. Completed in January 2016, the Hemsin house is a single-family residence on Perry City
Road. It was designed to be net-zero, and so far its performance is reportedly delivering on the net-zero
design goal. The house was also reportedly highly affordable. Despite the net-zero design and solar
photovoltaic system, the added green features reportedly only cost about 10% more than a
code-compliant house. The building scores 3 points for heat pumps (although some electric resistance
heat might disqualify these points), 1 point for a heat pump water heater, 1 point for an electric stove
and heat pump clothes dryer (with no fossil fuels to the building), 1 point for a modest window-to-wall
ratio, 1 point for modest floor area (2240 SF for a four-bedroom house), 1 point for including all heating
equipment and distribution within the heated space, 1 point for modest surface area, and 3 points for
on-site renewables (6.9 kw), for a total of 12 points (9 points if the heat pumps are disqualified due to
the electric resistance heat). It easily passes the threshold of six points, as we would hope it would, and
in fact scores very high in points, as we would also hope it does, as a net-zero building.
Overlook Apartments. Overlook Apartments (across from the hospital) were built in approximately 2007,
as a high-performance project in NYSERDA’s Energy Star program. But despite its high-performance
design, it likely would not meet the proposed better-than-code whole-building requirement. It might
only achieve 1 density/transportation points (if that). Heated with boilers, it would not get the heat
pump points. It also would likely not get any of the affordability points (window size, floor area, building
shape, etc.). We presume it would end up with perhaps 1 point, and so not come close to meeting the
proposed requirements.
Demarest Spec House, Spencer Street. Downtown location, 1152 square feet for a 2-bedroom single
family house, heat pumps, small window-to-wall ratio, and heating within the heated space all combine
to deliver 9 points. It passes easily, and is anticipated to be a highly-efficient house.
Ecovillage TREE – Three single-family homes that have proven net-zero performance, and others
designed to Passive House standards. Even though they might only get 1 point for
density/transportation (if that), they would get one point for windows, likely two points for size, one
point for shape, one point for heating in the heated space, and one point for solar energy, for a total of
6-7 points. Heating is electric resistance, so does not qualify for the heat pump points. In short, the
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 44
buildings pass, as we expect they might, although do not get as many points as we might expect. Several
of these buildings would also pass, separately, due to their whole-building Passive House certification,
which some of them achieved.
Belle Sherman Cottages. Designed to Energy Star at the time, they are reportedly not much better than
the current energy code. They use gas furnaces. Their location will likely earn them two
density/transportation points, but they would not qualify for any other points, and so would fail.
However, with such as heat pumps or a combination of other affordable improvements, they could pass.
Double Wide. A typical 55x25 double wide manufactured home , with 3 bedrooms, would get one point
for modest windows and two points for modest size. The typical exposed floor (over the crawlspace)
prevents such a home from getting the shape point. If it does not get the density points, it would fail,
but heat pumps would allow it to pass.
2.22.2 Commercial and Large Multifamily Buildings
Ecovillage Tree Common House. This is a 15-apartment, 4-story, 20000 SF building, which has a proven
performance of 9 site EUI (extremely low energy). It has 50 kw of solar PV. It would achieve maybe 1
point for density/transportation, 1 point for windows, 1 point for size (possibly two), 1 point for shape,
and 2 points for renewables (just short of 3 points), for a total of approximately 6 points, and so would
pass the point system. If the building had heat pumps, it would have achieved 9 points.
Marriott Hotel. The new Marriott would likely achieve 2 points for density/transportation. But it would
likely not get any other points, and so would not pass without design modifications.
Carey Building. The Carey Building (multi-story residential above the old Meyers shop) would get 2
points for density/transportation, 3 points for heat pumps, and 1 point for heating within the heated
space, so would pass, even though it would likely not get any other points. Its score (6) is not as high as
a super-high-performing buildings, and we would also not expect its performance to be as good as these
buildings. But its downtown location and heat pumps likely will deliver low-carbon operation. This
building would not have required any modifications to pass the proposed rating system, from how it was
designed/built.
Typical Building at Cornell Technology Park. The typical building at the Cornell Technology Park is of
interest because it might be typical of commercial buildings in the Town of Ithaca: Single-story, ribbon
windows, efficient combustion system or boiler/tower water loop heat pump. Such a building might
only qualify for 1 point (building shape), and perhaps 1 density/transportation points, and so would fail
unless the design were modified. Possible design modifications would include slightly lower window to
wall ratio (1 point), use of heat pumps (2 points for a commercial building), heating within the heated
space (1 point), and high-efficiency lighting (1 point).
Big Box Retail. As an example, Bed Bath and Beyond. It would get 1 point for window to wall ratio.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 45
Almost all big box stores would get this point, automatically. Its current shape does not qualify due to its
tall ceilings. It might get 1 point for right-lighting, although there may be corporate standards that would
prevent this. The rooftop HVAC could go with heat pumps for 2 points, although would not be eligible
for the 1 point within the heated space. Density might get it the points it needs to pass. So the primary
design change would be the heat pumps and these would deliver strong reduction in carbon emissions.
If it used split heat pumps, it could get the heating-inside-envelope point, although this would need
separate rooftop ventilation. This approach could be used for big box stores that do not meet the
density requirement.
107 South Albany Street. Under construction. 14 apartments with heat pumps. Same situation as Carey
Building – same points, same outcome, and no change to the actual design/construction would be
required. It would pass as is.
Gateway Commons. Built in about 2006, Gateway Commons was one of the first LEED buildings in the
City, achieving a LEED Silver rating, and so is an interesting test case: A high-performance building, but
not very high-performance. This building would get 2 points for density/transportation, but likely would
not get any other points – the windows are too large, floor area is too large, the heat pumps rely on a
boiler so would not qualify, it does not have heat pump water heating, etc. It might get one point for
building shape. So, the building would only get 2-3 points, and would not pass. Interestingly, the
building was benchmarked in 2012 with an energy use index (EUI) of 47. This confirms that the building
is high performing, but not very high-performing.
Breckenridge Apartments. 50 apartments in downtown Ithaca. Would get 2 points for
density/transportation, and possibly 1 point for floor area. It does use heat pumps, except for
ventilation which is gas-fired. The gas-fired ventilation disqualifies the heat pump points, so the building
fails, with only 3 points, even though it is LEED Platinum. It would not be difficult to have modified the
design to get the building to pass with 3 more points, for example with more modest windows or slightly
smaller apartment sizes and/or a heat pump for the ventilation. Breckenridge’s actual energy use index
(EUI) is 45, similar to Gateway Commons. Gateway Commons and Breckenridge confirm that
high-performing buildings that are not very-high-performing do not pass the point system.
2.22.3 Gut Renovations
HOLT Architects . HOLT Architects’ gut rehab of a building in the City’s west end was designed as a
net-zero building, with significant roof-mounted solar energy and other green features. Its performance
has not reached net-zero, but has still reportedly been highly-efficient, and we would expect it to pass
the rating system. This building would likely get 2 points for density/transportation, 3 points for
renewables, 1 point for modest window-to-wall ratio, 2 points for heat pumps, and 1 point for heating
within the heated space, for a total of 9 points. It scores well, and this is good because it is a proven
high-performance building.
109 S. Albany. 109 S. Albany is a small 1625 SF commercial professional office building. Although not
“gut-rehabbed” at one single point in time, extensive energy renovations over 15 years have been the
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 46
equivalent of a gut rehab, and the building uses 80% less energy than it did when last bought in 2002,
with a site EUI of less than 25. It would receive 2 points for density/transportation, 2 points for solar
(slightly shy of 3 points), and 1 point for low-energy lighting, and so would just fail pass the scoring
system, although barely, with 5 points. This is another example of a high-performing building that fails
because it is not very high-performing, and still relies on natural gas. It would pass with additional solar
energy, or with heat pumps.
110 S. Albany. Renovated in 2009, it was also converted at that time from an apartment building to an
office. It has received LEED Platinum certification. It would receive one fewer solar points than 109 S.
Albany, and so would fail with 4 points. It is another example of a LEED Platinum building that does not
pass the point system, largely because of its natural gas use, and its energy use index (EUI) of just over
60, which is good but still not very-high-performance. Required changes would include heat pumps, or
more solar, in order to reach six points.
2.23 Conclusions/Takeaways
The point system as currently proposed appears to pass known high-performance buildings (Hemsin
House, Ecovillage TREE homes and common house, HOLT Architects, Demarest house on Spencer
Street).
The point system fails known non-high-performance buildings (Marriott, typical building at Cornell
Technology Park), even if they have modest high-performance features like high-efficiency boilers.
The point system fails moderately high-performance buildings if they are not very high-performance
(Gateway Commons, Overlook Apartments, Breckenridge, 109 and 110 S. Albany), although the building
designs would pass with minor modifications.
The point system’s most distinctive features are the density/transportation points and points for heat
pumps. A residential or multifamily building can pass by primarily just meeting these two requirements
(e.g. Carey Building, 107 South Albany Street), and using heat pumps that are located within the heated
space.
In answer to our initial questions:
1. Would the proposed point system work for known high-performance buildings, in other
words, would they have passed? Yes.
2. Would the point system work for known non-high-performance buildings, in other
words, would they have failed? Yes.
3. Would such a point system have impacted designs? Yes. We see multiple examples
where somewhat high-performance buildings would fail, but by pursuing extra points,
could be brought to pass.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 47
4. Do “better” buildings score higher? Yes.
5. Would the point system be unusually cumbersome and costly? No.
2.24 References
Green Energy Incentives, Final Report, Tompkins County Planning Department / Tompkins County
Industrial Development Agency (TCIDA) / Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD). August 2016.
Heat pump references:
https://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems/air-source-heat-pumps
https://energy.gov/energysaver/geothermal-heat-pumps
Biomass: https://www.epa.gov/rhc/biomass-heating-and-cooling-technologies
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 48
3 Education and Outreach
3.1 Goals
The primary goal of the education and outreach campaign is to explain the process and methodology
used to develop recommendations for the proposed green building policy regarding energy and water
conservation.
Another goal of the campaign is to solicit input and feedback on the draft deliverables and
recommendations.
3.2 Target Groups
The target groups include the following:
1. Homeowners
2. Landlords
3. Developers
4. Design professionals
5. Builders
6. Community leaders
7. Municipal staff
8. Elected officials
3.3 Strategy
The City and Town of Ithaca are in a unique position with a strong vocal community engaged in both
green energy and social equity issues. Ithaca has the opportunity to be at the forefront of energy and
water conservation policies that exceed the code minimums and push our communities toward a
net-zero energy future. Implementing an effective policy will demonstrate leadership and set a positive
example for other municipalities.
The process of developing the recommendations for a new policy includes regular meetings of the
project team with meeting agendas and minutes which will be made available to the target groups.
A mailing list of the target groups and any interested parties will allow for regular communications to
announce special presentations or events as well as notify people of new content on the website. The
mailing list will be a primary method to solicit feedback on draft reports as well as preliminary and final
recommendations.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 49
3.3.1 Branding
The branding of a campaign can be an important part of effectively communicating the message to the
target groups and ultimately achieving the project goals. A campaign need not be flashy or overly
complex but it does require consistency. All communications should include a simple masthead with the
name of the project and a tagline. A consistent use of font styles and colors will help build confidence
and reinforce the underlying message.
For this campaign the project team has agreed on the name:
Ithaca Green Building Policy: Energy + Water
The font used is Calibri with the main name in bold and the Energy and Water regular.
The brand joins both the city and town together by just referring to “Ithaca” and the term/color “Green”
has historically been used to represent sustainability. In spite of being somewhat overused and perhaps
cliche, the term “Green” is simple and commonly understood. The terms “Energy” and “Water” provide
focus and avoid any confusion about the policy possibly applying to other common green building
practices such as sustainable sites, building materials or indoor air quality.
All communications will reference the Ithaca Green Building Policy name with the Energy + Water terms
included on more formal documents.
3.3.2 Distribution
Information will be distributed primarily by way of presentations to various stakeholder groups and
email announcements.
3.3.2.1 Website
A project website draft was ready for team and committee review on 9/22/17 and full launch in
November 2017.
The website will be the main focus of the marketing strategy with all communications directing people
there to review reports, agendas, minutes, resources and to make comments and ask questions through
a contact form.
3.3.2.2 Presentations
Some of the public presentations given through the course of this project include the following. A
complete list of events can be found on the project website at www.ithacagreenbuilding.com.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 50
City Planning and Economic Development Committee - January 10
City Planning and Development Board - January 23
Town Planning Committee - December 21
Town Planning Board - January 16
TCCPI - January 26
Public Information Session - March 28
3.4 Advisory Committee
3.4.1 Summary of Selection Criteria and Process
A preliminary list of possible committee members was generated through a brainstorming activity by the
consultant with input from the client at a regular project meeting. The list included known individuals in
the community who are active with design, construction, real estate, energy, planning, and social equity
issues. Efforts were made to make the list as diverse as possible in terms of gender and race and to
include people who are both familiar with green building practices and also those who are not. The list
was then sorted into three groups of people who could best represent the three categories of economic
development, ecology or social equity.
The entire client team and consultants were presented with an anonymous online survey where they
were asked to select three possible committee members for each category to ensure a healthy and
diverse mix of people. The results of the survey were then discussed by the project team with the nine
people receiving the most votes added to the list of finalists. The project team then discussed some of
the names who received fewer votes but may have been overlooked as good candidates. Four additional
names were added through this discussion.
Once the final list of thirteen candidates was established the consultant reached out to each person to
ask them if they would be interested in joining the committee. All of the candidates responded favorably
with only one candidate suggesting an alternative person due to other commitments (the representative
from Cornell University).
The following is the list of 13 Advisory Committee Members and the organizations they represent:
Peter Bardaglio Ithaca 2030 District; Tompkins County Climate Protection
Initiative
Katie Borgella Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability
Kirby Edmonds Building Bridges, The Dorothy Cotton Institute
Erik P. Eshelman Cornell University
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 51
Steve Hugo HOLT Architects
Jon Jensen Park Foundation
McKenzie Jones City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
Brent Katzmann Warren Real Estate
Leslyn McBean-Clairborne Tompkins County Legislature; Greater Ithaca Activities
Center
Heather McDaniel Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD)
Guillermo Metz Cornell Cooperative Extension
Scott Reynolds Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Frost Travis Travis Hyde Properties
3.4.2 Agendas, Presentations, Minutes
Agendas, presentations, minutes, and other materials from each Committee meeting can be found in
the appendix and on the project website www.ithacagreenbuilding.com.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 52
4 Building Stock Survey and
Development Forecasts
4.1 Introduction
In order to evaluate policy options and understand the possible outcome from different policies, it is
necessary to first understand the built environment that exists in Ithaca, as well as the associated energy
and water use relative to our policy goals. In addition, it is important to have a baseline of expectation
for how development will proceed in the future and how the future City and Town building stock could
be influenced by policy changes.
4.2 General Approach
To help the community understand the implications and potential levers for change that can help the
Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca to achieve energy and water savings goals, Randall + West has
developed the following Survey of Existing Buildings and a Development Forecast to project the future
built environment.
Identifying the data available locally, reviewing its accuracy and completeness, and performing some
basic analysis was the first step for this project. Using data made available by the Tompkins County
Department of Assessment, the City of Ithaca Zoning Division, the City of Ithaca GIS Program,the Town
of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department, and the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water
Commission, we have processed and analyzed parcel land use data, local water consumption, and
building permits. We have also estimated expected future energy use using data from from the New
York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) 2010-2016 Ithaca Community Energy Report, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and Commercial Building
Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), and the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority
(NYSERDA) New York State Residential Statewide Baseline Study (RSBS).
After reviewing all available local datasets, local plans, and other projections created for local studies
and projects our team decided to base our future assumptions largely on economic and population
projections from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. This firm is well regarded in the field of economic and
population projections and has been used locally in reports by TCAD and Tompkins County Planning.
Woods & Poole’s methodology differs from other projections by modeling the entire national economy
as well as individual counties and statistical areas to better understand the interplay between economic
conditions and “natural” changes related to birth, death, and aging. The projections include an expected
breakdown of the future population based on a number of factors including economic sector, age, and
gender. We believe that Woods & Poole’s focus on trends within economic markets as predictors of
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 53
population change is the best available method for creating a baseline of expectations for future
building stock in a world where workers, and population in general, is increasingly mobile.
The outcome of any long-term prediction, particularly when working with imperfect data, is not an exact
science. The development forecasts, and the land use demands they imply, are subject to variation due
to the many factors driving future demand. That said, these projections provide a sense of the
magnitude and proportion of change that can be expected in the long-term based on the best available
information.
4.3 Building Stock Survey
In order to better understand the current stock of buildings, including the mix of uses, ages, sizes, and
distribution, Randall+West started with a review and analysis of all pertinent data that the City of Ithaca
and the Town of Ithaca were able to provide as well as available datasets from Tompkins County
Department of Assessment, New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), and the aforementioned regional
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and regional Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey (CBECS).
The evaluation of available data provides key insights into the built fabric of our community, the existing
building stock, and trends of change over time. These data sources provide a background for
understanding Ithaca’s buildings; however, the development forecasts, and the land use demands they
imply are subject to variation due to the many factors driving demand in the future. These projections
are intended to provide a good idea of the magnitude and proportion of change that can be expected
over time based on the best available information.
4.3.1 Land Use Area
Urban land use greatly impacts the energy and water consumption of cities and towns. Data made
available by the County Department of Assessment helps illustrate the amount of land dedicated to each
of the land use types in the City and Town.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 54
Figure 1 - City of Ithaca: Parcel Area Distribution of Land Uses
At 28% of the City’s total parcel area, residential uses consume more land than any other use in the City
of Ithaca, followed by commercial land use, and community services. In 2008, U.S. residential and
commercial buildings used 73.2% of all electricity produced in the United States . Thus the future energy 1
and water demand in the City of Ithaca would be driven largely by energy and water needs of the
residential and commercial land uses.
Figure 2 - Town of Ithaca: Parcel Area Distribution of Land Uses
In the Town of Ithaca, residential land use also occupies the largest parcel area. The energy demand for
agricultural and community service land uses remains relatively stable over the years. Therefore the
energy and water demand in the Town of Ithaca would be driven largely by its residential land use.
1 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1791&context=lawfaculty
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 55
Water and energy demand depends not only on the land use, but also the size of parcels and the mix of
uses, ages, sizes, and distribution of buildings within each land use. In order to predict the energy and
water requirements of the City and Town of Ithaca, a built area inventory was created to estimate the
future development and usage of built space in the City and Town.
4.3.2 Building Area Inventory - Building Use Types
While land use area is useful for understanding how the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca have allocated
their limited amount of land, to understand the impact of building policies we must understand the
buildings that we have now and those we expect to be built in the future. Using County Department of
Assessment data we have evaluated the amount of building area in the City of Ithaca and Town of
Ithaca, respectively, based on the variety of use categories available. The inventory of building area was
derived by processing data from the Tompkins County Department of Assessment 2017 tax year parcel
data in ESRI ArcGIS 10.3. The Assessment Department data follows New York State Office of Real
Property Services’ Property Type Classification Codes, a uniform system used in assessment
administration in New York State which includes the following numeric codes in nine categories:
●100 - Agricultural - Property used for the production of crops or livestock.
●200 - Residential - Property used for human habitation. Living accommodations such as hotels,
motels, and apartments are in the Commercial category (400).
●300 - Vacant Land - Property that is not in use, is in temporary use, or lacks permanent
improvement.
●400 - Commercial - Property used for the sale of goods and/or services.
●500 - Recreation & Entertainment - Property used by groups for recreation, amusement, or
entertainment.
●600 - Community Services - Property used for the well being of the community.
●700 - Industrial - Property used for the production and fabrication of durable and nondurable
man-made goods. Parcels used for research aimed primarily at improving products are coded as
Industrial, while parcels used for marketing research are coded as Commercial.
●800 - Public Services - Property used to provide services to the general public.
●900 - Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands & Public Parks - Reforested lands, preserves, and
private hunting and fishing clubs
Within each of these nine categories are a number of specific uses. For example, within the 200 -
Residential use category some of the specific use codes include: 210 - One Family Year-Round Residence;
215 - One Family Year-Round Residence with Accessory Apartment; and 220 - Two Family Year-Round
Residence, among others. The Department of Assessment Property Class codes and associated
improvement descriptions were used to assign parcels into the aforementioned land use categories used
for this study.
Once the parcels in the City and Town were identified, we tallied square footage, building area for each
type of development directly from the provided parcel data. Three property types make up the vast
majority of built area in both the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca; these types are Residential,
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 56
Commercial, and Community Services. At this level of analysis, it is important to understand that some
uses that most would consider residential are split between the ‘Residential’ and ‘Commercial’ land use
codes. The 200s Residential use numbers includes one-, two-, and three-family homes, single mobile
homes on a lot, and multiple mobile homes on a lot when the lot is not a commercial enterprise. The
400s Commercial land use codes include several housing types including apartments, mobile home parks
where the land is leased or rented to mobile home owners as a business, rooming and boarding houses,
and fraternity and sorority houses. In addition, it is worth pointing out that Community Services includes
three of Ithaca’s largest employment sectors - Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (including
university owned dorms, but not including fraternity/sorority houses).
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 57
Fig. 3. City of Ithaca: Building Area by use-type
Fig. 4. Town of Ithaca: Building Area by use type
Residential, commercial, and community services land uses make up the vast majority of building area in
both the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca. Residential land use makes up one of the largest
components of building area in the Town and City of Ithaca. The residential use building area is expected
to increase with demand in the coming years. In the next section, we analyze the different kinds of
residential uses as each type has a different water and energy requirement.
4.3.3 Residential Building Use Types
To better understand the distribution of building area devoted to uses that most people consider to be
residential, we have created a sub-analysis of all residential uses including residential uses considered to
be “Commercial” under New York State land use classifications. This data does not include dorms on
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 58
university campuses which do not have a different property class to distinguish them from other campus
buildings (considered Community Services) and are frequently not on their own parcels.
Fig. 5. City of Ithaca: Residential Building Area - 2017
Figure 6. Town of Ithaca: Residential Building Area - 2017
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 59
Single-family residential buildings account for more building area than any other residential building
type in both the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, followed by two family residential, and
apartments. In the City of Ithaca, while single-family housing comprises more building area than other
residential types, at 38% of the total residential building area it is less building area than the sum of the
non-single-family residential building area. According to the 2015 Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan
Housing section, “Within the City of Ithaca, 73 percent of households are renters, and countywide 44
percent of households rent their homes.” In the Town of Ithaca, single-family building area accounts for
72% of all residential building area.
4.3.4 Building permits and demolitions
Along with the building area of different property use types, the future energy and water demand also
depends on the growth rate of the city or the town. In order to be able to make an informed estimate
for a city’s growth rate, understanding the rate of new construction and demolitions are imperative. In
this section, we take an overview of new constructions and demolitions in the City of Ithaca and Town of
Ithaca. Both the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca recently changed building permit database
systems and are working to improve data entry and data gathering practices. The best analysis for this
section would be to compare the building areas for new construction with any demolished building area
to understand the net increase each year. Unfortunately, while data on number of demolished buildings
is available, data on demolished building area is not and the vast majority of demolished buildings
appear to be sheds, garages, and carriage houses. The building area affected by any given permit is also
not currently tracked, although there is the potential in each new building permit database system to do
so. Given the limited data available, we are able to draw some basic conclusions by tracking simple
numbers of permits.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 60
City of Ithaca Building Permit Data 2014, 2015, 2016
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 61
Town of Ithaca Building Permit Data 2016 and 2017(through july 2017 when data was collected)
We find that new construction and demolitions are a small proportion of the total building permits
issued over last three years as compared to other types such as additions, alterations, repairs,
renovations, etc. While this project specifically focuses on a policy related directly to new construction,
future work looking at standards for existing buildings and smaller renovations including roof
replacements, and heating/utility upgrades could have a significant impact on overall energy use.
4.4 Building Area Forecast
In this section, we estimate the expected building area for residential, commercial, community service,
and industrial land use for the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca for 2030 and 2050. Building area by
land use could be used to determine the energy and water needs of each land use in the City and Town.
To estimate the long-term expected changes for the community, we relied on the 2015 American
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 62
Community Survey (ACS) for employment and demographic estimates, and Woods & Poole Economics,
Inc. employment projections for Tompkins County. Readers should note that there are many
unforeseeable events such as natural disasters (drought, earthquake, floods etc.), in-migration, or other
significant economic, social, or political changes that could occur in the future. Changes due to these
events are difficult to quantify in the present and have not been accounted for in this study.
4.4.1 Residential Development and Market Analysis
This section of the report presents the analysis of housing and population growth for 2030 and 2050
based. We first look at the population growth estimates for Tompkins County by Woods & Poole. Using
the projected population, total residential building area is calculated for 2030 and 2050 for the City and
Town of Ithaca assuming that future residents will use a similar amount of space per person that current
residents use. As with any projection methodology we cannot be sure the assumptions will hold far into
the future. One influencing factor is the increase of one- and two-person households; despite using
smaller units, these tend to have more square feet per person as even the smallest apartment can’t
shrink certain critical features like the size of bathrooms that have to be ADA accessible.
4.4.2 Population growth
We used Woods & Poole population projections for 2030 and 2050 for Tompkins County. Woods & 2
Poole follow a standard economic approach for their regional demographic and economic projections
called the ‘export-base’ approach. Given the availability of regional data, ‘export-based’ approach
remains one of the most reliable projection approaches.
2 Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. is a small, independent corporation that specializes in long-term county economic
and demographic projections.Source:
https://data.sagepub.com/sagestats/html/public/WP%20Methodology%202016.pdf .
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 63
Figure 7. Total Population, Tompkins County, 1975-2050
Figure 8. Population Distribution by age, Tompkins County, 2017
Figure 9. Population Distribution by age, Tompkins County, 2030
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 64
Figure 10. Population Distribution by age, Tompkins County, 2050
Fig. 11. Household number and size change, 1969 to 2050. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.
We find that the overall population is expected to increase by approximately 10% between 2017 and
2050, resulting in an increased demand for housing, commercial services, water, and energy. The highest
proportion of population falls between the age group of 15 to 24 years. The population in this age group
is expected to increase by approximately 20% between 2017 and 2050. The 15-24 age group may be a
major driver for the residential housing market throughout the region. An increase in the number of
households with a decreasing household size indicates an increase in one and two person households.
With many individuals in the 15 to 24 years age group as well as seniors living as one and two person
households, the expected residential demand for smaller dwelling unit types including studios and
apartments is expected to increase relative to large single-family homes.
4.4.2.1 Residential building area
We first calculated the population growth rate between 2015 to 2030, and 2015 to 2050, respectively,
for Tompkins County using Woods & Poole time series data. The population growth rates for 2030 and
2050 were then multiplied with the 2015 population of the City and the Town to estimate the
population for 2030 and 2050. Residential building area per capita was calculated for 2015. Residential
building area per capita was then multiplied by the population estimates for 2030 and 2050 to project
the total residential building area for both the City and the Town for 2030 and 2050, respectively.
For the residential building area estimates, we assume that the population growth rate in the City and
the Town of Ithaca would remain the same as that of Tompkins County. In recent decades, the
population growth in the City of Ithaca has been low despite growth in Tompkins County. In a 2015
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 65
interview with Brian Crandall of the Ithaca Voice, Megan Wilson, Senior Planner with the City of Ithaca
stated,"In 1950, approximately 50% of Tompkins County residents lived within the city; today (2015),
that number has fallen to 30%. At the same time, the city remains an employment center, and more
than 13,000 people commute into the community every day.“ We want to encourage more people to
live within the city, closer to jobs and services.Population growth rate similar to Tompkins County
serves as a goal to maintain a higher population growth rate in the City of Ithaca. In addition, to better
understand the distribution of building area devoted to uses that most people consider to be residential,
we have included residential uses considered to be “Commercial” under New York State land use
classifications under the residential building areain our analysis. To avoid duplication, the area of such 3
property types have been eliminated from the commercial building area analysis.
We also assume that the residential area per person would remain the same in the future as it is now. In
reality, the building area per person may increase or decrease in the future. For example, as the number
of households in the future increases with a decreasing household size, demand for studio and one
bedroom apartments is expected to rise, and the demand for large single-family homes is expected to
fall. It may appear that this would decrease the residential building area per person. However, new
suburban single-family homes tend to be significantly larger than historic homes in urban
neighborhoods, and even apartments are trending toward having an increased number of bathrooms
relative to the number of bedrooms (this trend exists in student focused apartments as well as luxury
apartment markets). The various Housing Needs Assessments performed by the Danter Company for the
Downtown Ithaca Alliance, the City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County identifies additional closet space and
additional bathrooms as amenities in high demand. Such trends may outweigh any decrease in average
unit size. However, these changes in demand and user behaviour are unforeseeable, and have not been
accounted for in this study.
3 Apartments (commercial property use type 411 as per the NYS property use codes) have been included in the
residential building area. Sixty percent (60%) of building area of detached row type and attached row type
(commercial property use types 481 and 482, respectively) has been included in the residential building area, and
the remaining 40% in the commercial building area based on a survey of such property types in the City of Ithaca.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 66
Fig 12. Projected Residential Building Area (in sq. ft)
The residential building area in the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca is expected to increase by 13%
between 2015 and 2050 owing to an increase in the total population of the city and the Town. The rate
of employment growth will likely continue to outpace the rates of housing and nonresidential
construction.
4.4.3 Non-Residential Development and Market Analysis
The development forecasts used in this study are based on projections of economic growth from the
New York State Department of Labor Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), the New
York Regional Economic Analysis Project (REAP), and the 2017 Complete Economic and Demographic
Dataset by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., a proprietary database containing more than 900 economic
and demographic variables for every county in the United States for every year from 1970 to 2050. We
first looked at the Woods & Poole employment projections for the different economic sectors in
Tompkins County. We then use this data to estimate the building area for commercial,
community-service, and industrial land use for 2030 and 2050 in the City and the Town of Ithaca,
respectively.
Historically, the data series shows that total employment in the Ithaca Metropolitan statistical area
(MSA) took a hit in the 2008-2009 recession, but bounced back to that level in 2016 and is predicted to 4
continue to rise at the rate of approximately 600 new jobs annually through 2050 according to Woods &
Poole 2017 projections.
4.4.3.1 Employment growth
We used the Woods & Poole employment projections for 2030 and 2050 for Tompkins County. Woods 5
& Poole follow a standard economic approach for their regional demographic and economic projections
called the ‘export-base’ approach. Given the availability of regional data, ‘export-base’ approach
remains one of the most reliable projection approaches.
4 A Metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is a geographical region with a relatively high population density at its core.
MSAs are defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and used by the U.S. Census Bureau and
other federal government agencies for statistical purposes.
5 Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. specializes in long-term county economic and demographic projections. Source:
https://data.sagepub.com/sagestats/html/public/WP%20Methodology%202016.pdf .
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 67
Fig. 13. Total Projected Employment in Tompkins County. Source: Woods & Poole
The total employment is expected to increase by nearly 27% between 2017 and 2050. The increase in
employment acts is an indicator for an overall increase in population of Tompkins County. The rate of
employment growth will likely continue to outpace the rate of residential construction. Increased
employment means an increased requirement of office, retail, industrial and community service building
area.
4.4.3.2 Non-residential building-area growth
This section presents the building area estimates for commercial, community service and industrial land
use for 2030 and 2050 for the City and the Town of Ithaca. We first calculated the employment growth
between 2015 to 2030 and 2015 to 2050 using the Woods & Poole time series data for Tompkins
County. Employment growth expectations were calculated by combining projections for each Bureau of
Labor Statistics employment sector category to approximate groupings based on the New York State
Land Use Codes that identify the use of every parcel in the County Parcel dataset. We calculated the
total number of employees for each sector within each Land Use classification in 2015 for the City of
Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, and applied a growth rate in each industry to arrive at an expected
number of employees in 2030 and 2050. The expected number of employees in each Land Use Code was
multiplied the by the average 2015 building area per employee in that Land Use Code to arrive at an
expected building area in 2030 and 2050. For the purposes of these calculations we assumed that each
sector’s employment growth rate in the City and the Town of Ithaca would be the same as that sector’s
growth rate in Tompkins County, this is a necessary assumption as employment projections are only
available at the County level. This assumption has not always held true historically, for much of
Tompkins County’s early history job growth was focused in the Village of Ithaca, and then the City after
it’s incorporation in 1888, and in the mid-20th century economic development was largely focused
outside of the City of Ithaca, however, it is a stated goal of the City, Town, and County to encourage and
increase economic development in areas with the most existing infrastructure and recent trends have
shown substantial growth within the transit served areas of the City and Town, we expect development
to be spread more evenly across the county in future decades based on the County’s nodal development
scenarios.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 68
For the commercial, community service and industrial land use, projected employment numbers for
each economic sector were classified into the most suitable land use category using the NY state land
use codes. For each land use, we calculated the building area per capita for 2015. The building area per
capita was then multiplied with the employment estimates of 2030 and 2050 to project the total
building area of commercial, community service and industrial land use for the City and the Town of
Ithaca.
The Commercial property use was subdivided into office and retail property use as the two types have
significantly different energy and water requirements. We eliminated storage space, parking garage, and
parking lots from the commercial building area as these property types do not have significant energy
(for example heating, electricity etc.), and water requirements compared to other buildings. As
previously mentioned, to better understand the distribution of building area devoted to uses that most
people consider to be residential, we have removed residential uses considered to be “Commercial”
under New York State land use classifications (apartments) and have incorporated those buildings in the
residential building area analysis .
6
Fig 14. Projected commercial building area (in sq. ft)
Table 5. Growth rate of commercial building area
6 Apartments (commercial property use type 411 as per the NYS property use codes) have been included in the
residential building area. 60% of building area of detached row type and attached row type (commercial property
use type 481 and 482 respectively) has been included in the residential building area, and the remaining 40% in the
commercial building area based on the author’s experience and survey of such property types in the City of Ithaca.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 69
The commercial building area in the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca is expected to increase by 11%
by 2030 and 25% by 2050 owing to an increase in employment and demand for office, services, and
retail.
Fig 15. Projected community-service building area (in sq. ft)
Table 6. Growth rate of community-service building area
Fig 16. Projected Industrial Building area (in sq. ft)
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 70
Table 7. Growth rate of Industrial building area
The industrial building area is the only sector where we project a reduction in building area. We project
a building area decline in the City of Ithaca of 11% from 2015 to 2050, and a decline of 12% for the Town
of Ithaca. This projection is consistent with trends of Ithaca’s industrial space being converted to other
uses including commercial and residential space.
4.5 Energy and Water Usage
4.5.1 Energy
This section of the report presents the analysis of energy demand for 2030 and 2050 for the residential
and non-residential uses in the City and Town of Ithaca. To estimate the long-term expected energy
requirements of the community, we used the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and
Commercial and Business Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) administered by U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) for per foot energy demands of residential, commercial, and community services
property types. RECS and CBECS are a nationally representative sample of housing units. For the 2015
survey cycle, EIA used web and mail forms – in addition to in-person interviews – to collect detailed
information on household energy characteristics, including the housing unit, usage patterns, and
household demographics. This information is combined with data from energy suppliers to estimate
energy costs and usage for heating, cooling, appliances, and other end uses for these housing units. We
multiplied the building area estimates (from the building area forecast) with the EIA per square foot
energy requirement to estimate the total energy requirement for residential, commercial, and
community service property use types.
Apart from building area, energy demand also depends on user behaviour. There are a range of factors
that could impact user behaviour: stringent energy codes; changing technology; changing energy costs;
increased affordability of renewable energy such as solar panels; personal motivation etc. User
behaviour is extremely difficult to quantify and is not accounted for in this study. In order to compare
apples to apples for our baseline future energy use forecast for a business as usual scenario we assume
future energy use per square foot to stay the same. In other words, unknowable factors such as change
in energy codes, technology, etc. are not factored into this analysis as an expected baseline. The impact
of these factors is difficult to account for, especially at the household or independent business level. In
addition, changes in energy use due to unforeseeable future events such as natural disasters,
in-migration, etc. have not been considered. Overall, the energy demand forecast calculations are based
on the assumption that the energy requirement per square foot in the future remains constant. In future
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 71
sections of the report possible changes to energy density due to some expected trends will be more fully
explored.
4.5.1.1 Residential Energy Demand
This section presents the total energy demand by the residential property type in the City and the Town
of Ithaca for 2030 and 2050. We used the residential building area projections for 2015, 2030, and 2050,
and multiplied expected building area by the per foot energy usage for residential property type as per
RECS.
4.1.5.1.2 Fig 17. Residential Energy Demand (in million BTUs)
We find that the estimated residential energy demand for the City and the Town of Ithaca in 2015 was
approximately 579,000 million BTUs and 456,000 million BTUs respectively. This estimate lines up
reasonably with NYSEG’s energy consumption data for the City and Town of Ithaca, i.e. approximately 7
700,000 million BTUs and 430,000 million BTUs respectively. The Cleaner Greener Southern Tier
Regional Sustainability Plan report states that residential property use type makes up for 28% of the
total energy end use. As per our estimates, residential energy demand makes up approximately 34% of
the total residential, commercial and community service energy demand combined together for both
the Town and the City. This means that residential demand would make up close to 30% of the total
energy demand of the City and the Town (with energy demand of other sectors such as industrial, public
services etc. combined). The residential energy demand is expected to increase linearly between 2015
and 2050 for both the City and the Town.
4.5.1.2 Non- Residential Energy Demand
This section presents the total energy demand by the non-residential property types (commercial and
community services) in the City and the Town of Ithaca for 2030 and 2050. We used the non-residential
building area projections for 2015, 2030, and 2050, and multiplied it with the per foot energy usage for
non-residential property types as per CBECS.
As per CBECS, the retail and office commercial spaces have different energy requirements. Thus, we
divided the commercial property types into retail and office space depending on the spatial use of the
7 Community-wide Utility Energy Consumption Report 2010-2015.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 72
activity. As mentioned earlier, we then multiplied the building area projections with the per foot energy
usage for office and retail space as per CBECS.
Fig 18. Commercial Energy Demand (in million BTUs)
Table 8. Commercial Energy Demand by Office and Retail use
We find that the estimated commercial energy demand for the City and the Town of Ithaca in 2015 was
approximately 330,000 million BTUs and 42,000 million BTUs respectively. The Cleaner Greener
Southern Tier Regional Sustainability Plan report states that commercial property use type makes up for
17% of the total energy end use. As per our estimates, commercial energy demand makes up
approximately 20% of the total residential, commercial and community service energy demand
combined together. This means that the commercial demand would make up close to 17% of the total
energy demand of the City and the Town (with energy demand from other sectors such as industrial,
public services etc. combined).In the City, retail energy demand is a substantially larger component of
total commercial energy consumption, while in the Town retail uses only slightly more energy than
office space, this difference is directly related to the fact that a significantly higher percentage of
commercial building area in the city is retail space.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 73
Community services use the third largest building area in the City, and second highest in the Town. As
mentioned earlier, we multiplied the building area projections for community services with the per foot
energy usage as per CBECS.
Fig 19. Community Services Energy Demand (in million BTUs)
4.5.2 Water
This section of the report presents the analysis of water demand for 2030 and 2050 for the residential
and non-residential uses in the City and Town of Ithaca. To estimate the long-term expected water
requirements of the community, we used the 2015 parcel-wise quarterly water consumption data
provided by the City of Ithaca. A major limitation faced with estimating the water demand were
incomplete datasets. Water consumption data for many parcels was missing in the quarterly datasets.
Keeping this limitation in mind, we were able to estimate the water demand by using annual average
water-use per-foot for each property use type. To do this, we considered those parcels that have a built
area, and whose water consumption data was complete within a quarterly dataset. We eliminated
parcels with -0- building area, negative or -0- water consumption, as well as outliers where there was a 8
huge variance from the building type’s average use (such outliers are likely the result in changes in
meter technology or other errors). We calculated the total water usage for residential, commercial and
community services in each quarter. We then divided the water use for each use type by their building
area (given in the dataset) to get the average quarterly water-use per-square-foot for a each property
type. Because of issues in the dataset and the way water use data is collected there was not consistent
data for every building for every quarter so calculating average use per square foot separately for each
8 A building cannot have negative water use over a quarter. A -0- or negative water reading may imply an empty
building or parcel, or an issue with the water meter.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 74
quarter was the most accurate method. The average water-use from the four quarters was combined to
deduce the annual average water-use per-foot for each building type.
A similar process was applied to water consumption data provided by the Town of Ithaca with
consumption for 2017, however the town water data was extremely inconsistent with other tested data.
For the residential parcels that water consumption data was available for, the average per square foot
consumption was about 26 gallons/sqft, while the City of Ithaca’s average was just over 50 and national
averages are in the upper 50 gallons/sqft. This may be the case for a number of reasons, the average
home size per person in the Town is significantly higher than the average home size per person in the
city, however none of the tested reasons fully account for the discrepancy. We expect that the majority
of future development in the Town, based on the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, will be more similar to
development in the City than it is to existing development in the Town so we have decided to apply City
water consumption rates (that are more in line with regional and national datasets) to the expected
future development in the Town.
Fig 20. Quarterly water-use per-foot in the City of Ithaca, 2015
The water demand projections assume that the rate of use relative to building area will be constant, in
reality, water usage demand is based more on per capita (per person) consumption than per foot usage.
Water demand per foot may change in a number of scenarios; for example, we project that the number
of households in the City and the Town are likely to increase with a decreasing household size leading to
a higher demand for apartments instead of single-family homes. In such a scenario, if the water use per
person remains the same, the water usage per foot would increase if the residential area per person
decreased and vice versa. With that said, consumption per square foot of building at the municipal scale
is not likely to change substantially and for the use as a simple baseline for scenario comparison this
tradeoff is reasonable.
4.5.2.1 Residential Water Demand
This section presents the estimated water demand for residential buildings in the City and the Town of
Ithaca. We multiplied the residential annual water use per foot use with the estimated residential
building area for 2015, 2030, and 2050.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 75
Fig 21. Residential water demand (in thousand gallons)
We find that the residential water demand in the City and the Town is expected to increase linearly for
the City and the Town between 2015 and 2050.
4.5.2.2 Non- Residential Water Demand
In this section, we present the estimated water demand for commercial buildings in the City and the
Town of Ithaca. The water requirements for retail and office spaces are different. We calculated the
annual water use per foot for retail and office spaces separately for 2015, 2030, and 2050 based on each
uses average water consumption per square foot.
Fig 22. Commercial water demand (in thousand gallons)
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 76
Table 9. Commercial Water Demand by Office and Retail use
We find that the water demand for the City increases at a higher rate than the Town between 2015 and
2050. The water demand in both the City and the Town is driven largely by the increasing retail water
demand.
For the community services water demand projections, we multiplied the annual water use per foot for
community services with its estimated building area for 2015, 2030, and 2050.
Fig 23. Community Services water demand (in thousand gallons)
We find that the water demand for community services buildings in the City increases at a higher rate
than that of the Town.
4.6 Benchmarking and Data Limitations
While there is adequate information to move forward with a Green Building Policy in the City of Ithaca
and Town of Ithaca now, to be most efficient such policy will require ongoing monitoring and evaluation
with more complete data than is currently available. Data collection in the specific areas of building
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 77
characteristics and individual building energy use benchmarking, particularly the latter, as it is a
foundational element of energy management strategy, should be improved.
The City’s FileMaker Pro building permitting system has capacity for inventorying basic building
characteristic information, including siding materials, foundation, roof, heat type / BTU, water heaters /
BTU, and electrical system but these values were generally missing in the data, indicating an opportunity
area for establishing a protocol for filling in data gaps. The Town of Ithaca uses Municity, an advanced
database for processing building permits that has significant capacity for monitoring the size and
performance of new and existing buildings but that would require better record keeping and data input
for all projects to be as useful as possible for the evaluation of green building related policies.
The distributed nature of buildings in addition to perceived and real permitting costs and time
requirements for developers make it an especially hard sector to regulate. However, robust and
accurate data collection is critical to achieving optimal energy use in the City and Town. Without it, it is
difficult to estimate the impact of a proposed green building policy and to assure that the incentives
offered by the City and Town, respectively, lead to the optimized energy use and public benefits that are
desired.
4.7 Projections in the Context of Local Plans
To understand the range of variation between this report’s projections for growth and other local long
range estimates it is useful to compare the various published expectations. While none of the existing
local plans fully describe buildout scenarios in the way that this report attempts to quantify, the context
is helpful to understand.
The City of Ithaca published Ithaca Planning Influences report in 2012 as part of their Comprehensive 9
Plan process. The Planning Influences report references Cornell’s Program on Applied Demographics
(PAD) projections for Tompkins County. According to this source the population of Tompkins County was
expected to grow very slowly from 2011-2020 and then to decrease by 0.8% and 2.3% by 2030 and 2050
respectively. The PAD projections predict the total population of Tompkins County to be 100,893 in
2030, and 98,606 in 2050. The Woods & Poole projections used our baseline expectations of buildings in
Ithaca suggest that the population of the County would increase to approximately 112,000 in 2030, and
to 118,000 by 2050. The reason for a difference in the projected population for the County are likely a
difference in methodology, with Tompkins County’s strong economic performance in recent years and
the expected growth of major employers we believe planning for more development, rather than less, is
the most prudent approach for the Green Building Policy. The Planning Influences Report informed the
Comprehensive Plan, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not include any specific targets for
construction, or expected development within any specified timeline. The Planning Influences Report
also includes an analysis of infill building potential based on then existing zoning and an extremely
conservative metric of assuming buildings would only be torn down for redevelopment if the land under
the building was worth more than the improvements, however, with the average building in Ithaca being
9 https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/170
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 78
worth five or six times more than the land it sits on and the recent history of variances and zoning
changes, in addition to the significant areas of character change called for in the City of Ithaca and Town
of Ithaca comprehensive Plans, we believe that looking at demand for building either housing or space
for expected business growth is a stronger predictor of future building expectations.
The Town of Ithaca’s comprehensive plan includes an appendix with some population growth
calculations. The Town projected a 2030 population of 22,605, this reports methodology projectes a
2030 population of 21,697. The Town of Ithaca projected a 24% increase in housing units every 10 years
with an expectation of 1,029 new housing units by 2030. While our projections are slightly smaller than
the Town’s internal projection, within the Town of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan Appendix E Population
and housing projections the analyst demonstrates that applying the methodology that they used for the
2030 projection to 2000 census numbers would result in an expected population of 17,972 in 2010 while
the census actually found a population of 16,201.
According to the 2017 Tompkins County Housing Strategy, there is currently a desire for an additional
1-200 subsidized senior apartments, 200 new rental units per year through 2025, 300 new single family
homes in the $150k and up price range per year through 2025, 80 new condominiums per year, and an
existing deficit of 1,400-1,500 purpose built student housing beds, and that does not include the
demand for new luxury units. The Downtown Housing Strategy, prepared for the Downtown Ithaca
Alliance in 2011, projects that over the next 5 years there is overall housing demand for up to 1,350
units in the Downtown area (consisting of up to 350 for-sale units and up to 1,000 rental units). This
equates to an annual demand of as many as 70 for-sale units and 200 rental units per year. As per this
report, it is estimated that there will be new 2000 jobs in Tompkins County by 2020, 5000 by 2030, and
10,000 new jobs in the County by 2050, an annual increase of just under 300. The Ithaca Planning
Influences report of 2012, estimated a more aggressive 558 new jobs per year from 2012-2022.
Discrepancies in the various long range projections available should be expected, there are no crystal
balls and communities and economies are more complex than any mathematical model can hope to
capture. Compared to the various long range plans available for the City, Town, and County we believe
this report’s projections to be conservative in terms of not significantly over or under estimating the
potential impacts of the proposed Green Building Policy.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 79
5 Glossary
EnergyStar - an energy efficiency program of the U.S. EPA, including certification for energy products,
like lighting and appliances, as well as whole-building energy ratings.
EUI - Energy Use Index. A measure of the total energy used by a building in a year, per square foot of
floor area. All energy uses (including electricity) are converted into units of kBtu/SF/year.
Fossil fuels - Fuels derived from fossilized carbon-based sources. For green buildings, these are used
primarily for heating. For buildings, fossil fuels most prominently include fuel oil, natural gas, and
propane.
GBCI - Green Business Certification Inc. is an American organization that provides third-party
credentialing and verification for several rating systems relating to the built environment, including most
prominently LEED.
Heat pumps - An electrically-driven heating and cooling system, that most typically extracts heat from the
outdoor air or from the ground in order to heat buildings.
HERS - Home Energy Rating System. A scoring index for residential energy efficiency, developed and
adminstered by RESNET.
IECC - International Energy Conservation Code.
LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. A green building rating/certification system,
developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and administered by Green Business Certification
Inc (GBCI).
RESNET - Residential Energy Services Network. Developer and administrator of the HERS index
residential energy rating system.
Renewable energy - Energy that is produced from sources regarded as renewable, including most
prominently solar photovoltaic systems, solar thermal systems (typically hot water), wind-generated
electricity, and biomass for heating.
USGBC - U.S. Green Building Council. Developer of the LEED green building rating system.
WaterSense - A water conservation program of the U.S. EPA.
WELL - A green building wellness certification system, developed and administered by the International
Well Building Institute.
Ithaca Green Building Policy DRAFT Project Report (3/9/18) - Pg. 80
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC)
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: March 7, 2018
Re: Proposal to Amend the City’s Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement
Program (CIITAP)
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to expand the boundaries of
the City’s Density District to include the newly adopted Waterfront Zoning Districts and to mandate
that residential projects applying for an abatement contain affordable units. Please see the enclosed
map of the proposed expanded Density District.
This committee previously discussed a staff recommendation to expand the boundaries of the CIITAP
to include the waterfront area. However, in addition to reviewing the boundaries, staff has been
reviewing the CIITAP policy and requirements in order to address the need to provide additional
opportunities for workforce housing within the City. Staff proposes that the City consider an
amendment that would require housing projects applying for CIITAP to provide a minimum of 10%
of their total units be affordable units. Affordable units would be defined as units whose rents are
affordable to those earning 75% of Area Median Income (AMI) and would be restricted to be
occupied by households that earn no more than 80% of AMI. The table below shows sample market
rents derived from existing rents in the downtown area. In addition, the table shows rents that would
be affordable to people earning various percentages of the area median incomes.
Affordable units would also have a requirement to be of a size comparable to the apartments in the
full project. Therefore, if a project contains 75% 2 bedroom units and 25% 1 bedroom units, then the
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
affordable portion of the project would also need to be 75% 2 bedroom and 25% 1 bedroom. Units
would need to remain affordable for a period of 20 years. The table below shows a sample project
with the breakdown of apartment sizes and the recommended required number of affordable units.
Recognizing that this requirement will most likely result in a loss of potential revenue for the project,
staff recommends that the CIITAP program include additional support for housing projects that
provide affordable units. The current standard CIITAP offers a 7 year abatement that starts at a 100%
abatement on new taxes and reduces annually in equal increments over a 7 year period. In order to
offset the loss in revenue on these units and maintain financial feasibility of the project, staff proposes
that for projects containing an affordable housing component, there be an additional 10% annual
reduction in new taxes paid for a period of 20 years. The enhanced abatement is intended to reduce
annual property taxes by approximately $4,000-$5,000 per affordable unit provided.
Staff also recommends that a citywide policy be considered that would require all new residential
rental projects containing more than 10 units be required to either provide 10% of their units at an
affordable rent or that they make a payment in lieu into a housing fund. The following uses would be
excluded from this requirement:
1. Dormitory, fraternity, sorority,
2. Group home,
3. Cooperative household,
4. Rooming or boarding house uses,
5. New York State licensed residential facilities, and
6. Any project where at least 20% of the residential units are subject to an agreement that
restricts occupancy of those units to tenants who qualify in accordance with an income test.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
If the Committee is in agreement, staff will circulate this proposal and return to the April PEDC with
any comments that are received. If you have any concerns or questions regarding this information,
feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
EAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUEWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETCENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU EEAST AVENU E CAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADSTEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE OAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVE
EDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEHO Y R OA DHOY R OA DHOY R OA D
HIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U EUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACES TE WA R T A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUETHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEL A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
LOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOP
W I L L A R D W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A Y
WILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYLLENR O C C O URTLLENROC C O URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC C O URTLLENROC C O URTLLENROC C O URTLLENROC C O URTLLENROC C O URTLLENROC C O URT
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADSTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUE
DEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREET
CASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUEFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREET
LINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREET
NO RT H AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREETNORTH AU RORA S TREET
EAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUESUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREET IRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACE(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)OXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEI T H A C A R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUEDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADCOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUE COOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETB RYANT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EBR YA NT AVEN U EDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREET MITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEB R A N D O N PLA C EB R A N D O N PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C E
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C EEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETSO UTH Q UARRY STRE E TSOUTH Q UARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E TSOUTH QUARRY STRE E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)E BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUE
EDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREET
NORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREET
EAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETG IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
DEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACE
SCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACE
PARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREET
TERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACE
FOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACE
WILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACE
GLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACE SENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREET PLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACECOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETEAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)SOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREET
FAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STRE ETFAYETTE STRE ETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREET
WEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREE TSOUTH ALBANY STREE TSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREET
TURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC ETURNER PLAC E
EAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETNORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUESPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STRE E TSOUTH PLAIN STRE E TSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREET
WEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETCLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUEWEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)NORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STRE ETNORTH COR N STREET WEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREET
NORTH PLAIN STRE ETNORTH PLAIN STRE ETNORTH PLAIN STRE ETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREET
CENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETNORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUEN YS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)SOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUE(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.SOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREET
(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)TAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACE FLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUECHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETS H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
UT ICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREET
NOR TH TIOG A ST REE TNORTH TIOG A STREE TNORTH TIOG A STREE TNORTH TIOGA STREE TNORTH TIOGA STREE TNORTH TIOGA STREE TNORTH TIOGA STREE TNORTH TIOGA STREE TNORTH TIOGA STREE T
W TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREET
UTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREET
W MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STNORTH GENEVA S TREETNORTH GEN EVA S TREETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA STREET
NORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETNYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13EAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETNO RTH CAYUG A ST RE ETNORTH CAYUG A STRE ETNORTH CAYUG A STRE ETNORTH CAYUG A STRE ETNORTH CAYUGA STRE ETNORTH CAYUGA STRE ETNORTH CAYUGA STRE ETNORTH CAYUGA STRE ETNORTH CAYUGA STRE ET
FRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETW IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U EEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETF IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
PARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACE
WASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETNORTH PLAIN STRE ETNORTH PLAIN STRE ETNORTH PLAIN STRE ETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREET
WEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STRE ETMEADOW STRE ETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREET
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N )(N YS RTE 34N/13N )(N YS RTE 34N/13N )(N YS RTE 34N/13N )(N YS RTE 34N/13N )(N YS RTE 34N/13N )(N YS RTE 34N/13N )NO RTH M EA DOW ST REETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREETNORTH M EA DOW STREET
CECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVE(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)NY S RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96SNYS RTE 13S/34S/96S
BRIN DLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREET
WEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREET SO UTH FULTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FULTO N STR EETSO UTH FULTO N STR EETSO UTH FULTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EET(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)THIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONN Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6THIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTCARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLEH E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.PARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADTAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREET(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)HOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEW E ST FIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV EWESTFIELD DRIV E SUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLH E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
TAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACEN Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T 5001,0000feetPROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CIITAP BOUNDARYBuildingsProperty BoundariesExisting CIITAP BoundaryNY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2017inanceMap Prepared by: GIS Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, 8 March 2018.Proposed Expansion of CIITAP
Various Defined Income Bands for Housing Assistance ProgramsAffordable to Whom?3/5/2018Income Bands<10% of AMI 20% of AMI 30% of AMI 40% of AMI 50% of AMI 60% of AMI 70% of AMI 80% of AMI90% of AMI100% of AMI 110% of AMI 120% of AMI 130% of AMITompkins County data:HUD 2017 3‐Person TC Family:$6,810 $13,620 $22,440 $27,240 $37,400 $40,860 $47,670 $54,480 $61,290 $68,100 $74,910 $81,720 $88,530Affordable rent @ 30% of Income:$170 $340 $560 $680 $940 $1,020 $1,190 $1,360 $1,530 $1,700 $1,870 $2,040 $2,210Median earnings F/T Y/R worker:$47,337Median family income:$76,276Median HH Income:$54,133Median non‐student HH Income: $61,800HUD:Extremely Low IncomeVery Low IncomeLow IncomeModerate IncomeEnterprise:WorkforceUrban Land Institute:WorkforceBoston Metro:Extremely Low Income Very Low IncomeLow IncomeLower Middle IncomeUpper Middle IncomeCalifornia:Lower IncomeModerate IncomeIncome Eligibility by Rental Housing Funding Program:Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)HUD Home Partnership Investment Program (HOME)Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)State Low Income Housing Tax Credit (SLIHTC)NYS Housing Trust FundNYS Supportive Housing Opportuniy ProgramNYS Middle Income Housing Program2017 Rent Limits ‐ Tompkins County2018 HCV 2017 2017Bedrooms (People)Pmt. Stnd. 70% AMI 80% AMIEfficiency (1.0)$842$927$1,0601‐Bedroom (1.5)$929 $993 $1,1352‐Bedroom (3.0)$1,129 $1,191 $1,3623‐Bedroom (4.5)$1,540 $1,376 $1,573Notes:1. Unless otherwise noted, the data source is the 2016 American Community Survey, 5‐year estimates for Tompkins County, NY2. Median non‐student household income is imputed by inflating the median hh income by 14.17% based on data from the 1999 special tabulation #137 of student and non‐student households: 2000 Tompkins County median hh income = $38,304. 2000 median non‐student hh income = $43,730, 14.17% higher than the countywide median income. 3. Data sources for rent levels by unit size is from the Novogradac & Co. LLP Rent and Income calculator and TCAction, Inc. for the Housing Choice Voucher payment standards rents.
Green Street Garage Redevelopment Example3/5/2018Project Rent ProfileProjected2020Rental Unit TypeTotal Project Rents@10% affordable units@20% affordable units#%#%#%Studio168 41% $1,50017 43%34 43%1 Bedroom59 15% $1,7006 15%12 15%2 Bedroom136 34% $2,40014 35%28 35%3 Bedroom42 10% $3,3753 8%6 8%405 100% $9,845,40040 100%80 100%Comparison of Market vs. Affordable Rent Difference ‐ Per UnitSTUDIO1‐BEDROOM2‐BEDROOM3‐BEDROOM2017 Rent LevelsMonthlydifferenceMonthlydifferenceMonthlydifferenceMonthlydifferenceRent monthly annual 20‐year Rent monthly annual 20‐year Rent monthly annual 20‐year Rent monthly annual 20‐yearMarket Rent (2017)$1,373$1,556$2,196$3,08975% AMI rent$993$1,064$1,276$1,474$380 $4,557 $91,131$492 $5,901 $118,018$920 $11,044 $220,882$1,615 $19,375 $387,505Comparison of Market vs. Affordable Rent Different ‐ ProjectDifference: Market vs. Affordable RentAnnual % of Available PILOT20‐Year Average/Method75% AMI Rent Level Monthly Annual Total Unit#1 #2Maximum Potential Annual PILOT Amount (w/o affordable units)Method #1 ‐ $130K Assessed Value/ Rental Unit@ 10% Affordable Units$27,134 $325,610 $6,512,190 $8,14021% 21%Estimated Increased Annual Property Taxes: $1,580,000@ 20 % Affordable Units$54,268 $651,219 $13,024,381 $8,14041% 42%Method #2 ‐ Taxes = 20% of Gross Rent CollectedEstimated Increased Annual Property Taxes:$1,544,000
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, January 10, 2018 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock,
Donna Fleming, Stephen Smith, and Laura
Lewis
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending:
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Megan Wilson,
Senior Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability
Coordinator; and Deborah Grunder, Executive
Assistant
Others Attending: Alderperson McGonigal
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
a) Call to Order/Agenda Review
JoAnn Cornish stated she would have an announcement later in the meeting that
is not listed on the agenda.
b) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Alderperson Smith moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Avenue. The City needs more parks not fewer.
They provide a multitude of benefits. Much research has shown that adding
street trees and parks helps control crime.
Elizabeth Martyn, 306 Ithaca Road, spoke on the proposed elimination of some
of the current City parks. The City should take a closer look.
Michael Ryzewic, 306 Ithaca Road, the small pocket parks throughout the
neighborhoods are still assets to the City. We really do care about these parks
and really cherish them. If more work is needed to maintain them, our
neighborhood could help.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Smith. Carried unanimously.
b) Public Hearing – Planned Unit Development Overlay District
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Smith. Carried unanimously.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, she realizes that this plan is in the planning stages,
there is talk of 915 units of housing. Will the City make sure they are workforce
housing? Affordable to people who earn maybe $30,000 or less like many, many
of our residents do.
Tessa Rudan, 62 Woodcrest Avenue. She doesn’t want to see the PUD in
Collegetown. It took a particular long time to get the Collegetown zoning plan in
place. She would hope that this PUD would not take the place of the current
Collegetown plan. She suggested that a new committee be formed to look at this
issue. She would like to see the Collegetown area remain as is.
Sheryl Swick, 321 N. Albany Street, most PUD are established to concentrate the
use of land for a specific reason. It’s important to make parts of these areas
protected.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Smith. Carried unanimously.
c) Presentation – Green Building Policy
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator, explained policy to the group. The
rationale for this policy is Ithaca has strong history of sustainability efforts and
climate action is more important than ever. This project focuses on new
development and is a grant-funded project for both the City and the Town. This
will lead to a sustainability plan.
The project started in 2016 with Stream Collaborative serving as the project
consultant. The Green Building Advisory Committee was formed in May 2017. A
building stock and development forecast survey was established in November
2017.
The criteria for this project is affordability, impactful, flexible, and achievable. It is
meant to not increase costs to a developer. A certain number of credits must be
reached to be eligible to be considered a ‘green building.’ Five (5) points are
needed which can be given based on location, home size, heat pumps, the
number of windows, etc. The anticipated results will be 40-50% lower carbon
emissions and 70% better than existing building stock.
The draft of the policy guide will be done in February 2018. More information is
available at their website ithacagreenbuilding.com.
c) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke regarding 323 Taugh. Blvd. after attending the
IDA meeting on CIITAP. There is a problem with CIITAP – there needs to be
housing. Common Council doesn’t get a vote for these applications.
Chair Murtagh thanked all who came to express their feelings and desires to keep
the neighborhood parks in tack. It is very important to the people of these
neighborhoods.
Alderperson Brock thanked all who came to speak.
d) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
JoAnn Cornish stated that the 2017 accomplishments and 2018 goals have been
created and sent out to Council for comment. It will be brought back in February
for further discussion.
She then asked what should be the sequence of the neighborhood plans.
Waterfront has been done, and we are currently working on the Southside
neighborhood.
Alderperson Brock announced that the NYS DEC received funding to collect water
and soil samples at Nates Floral Estates.
e) Action Items (Voting to send onto Council)
a) Planned Unit Development Overlay District
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled
“Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to Expand the Area Permitted for
Planned Unit Developments By Creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay
District (PUDOD) – Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
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 “Unlisted” 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 proposed amendments to Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” in order to expand the area permitted for planned unit
developments by creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD).
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled
“Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to Expand the Area Permitted for
Planned Unit Developments By Creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay
District (PUDOD) – Declaration of Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously.
1. WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to expand the area
permitted for planned unit developments by creating a Planned Unit
Development Overlay District (PUDOD), and
2. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been conducted, including
the preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated June 3,
2014
3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “unlisted” 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 May 6, 2014, 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.
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Entitled
“Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to Expand the Area Permitted for
Planned Unit Developments By Creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay
District (PUDOD)
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-____
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously with the change of the map.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation allowing for the
City to establish Planned Unit Development districts on any property in the City currently
zoned for industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2017, the Common Council adopted new zoning for the
waterfront districts, which included a statement recognizing that the adopted zoning
may not allow for projects that could be beneficial to the community and recommended
that the City consider adopting legislation to allow for PUDs throughout the City,
including in the waterfront districts, and
WHEREAS, A PUD is a tool that allows the Common Council to have flexibility to
approve projects that may not fit into the underlying zoning, but may have benefits for
the community that outweigh any impacts resulting from not complying with the pre-
established regulations for that district, and
WHEREAS, in order to allow for potential development that could bring significant
benefits to the community, staff has recommended the establishment of the Planned
Unit Development Overlay District, which would allow for PUDs in areas of the City
where additional development is anticipated, but would protect areas that have
established 1 and 2 family residential neighborhoods; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca that
Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12. of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, Zoning Map of the Municipal Code of the City
of Ithaca is hereby amended to create a Planned Unit Development Overlay District
(PUDOD) to include properties located Within the boundaries displayed on the map
entitled “Proposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District
(PUDOD)-December 2017”,” a copy of which shall be on file in the City Clerk’s office.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.B, entitled “Purpose and Intent”, is hereby
amended in order to change the allowable location for a potential PUD, and should read
as follows:
§325-12.
B. Purpose and intent.
(1) This legislation is intended to institute procedures and
requirements for the establishment and mapping of PUDs, which
may be placed in any location approved by the Common Council,
as long as it is located within the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District (PUDOD), the boundaries of which can be seen
on the attached map, “Proposed Boundary for the Planned
Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) -December
2017”. The PUD is a tool intended to encourage mixed-use or
unique single use projects that require more creative and
imaginative design of land development than is possible under
standard zoning district regulations. A PUD allows for flexibility in
planning and design, while ensuring efficient investment in public
improvements, environmental sensitivity, and protection of
community character. A PUD should be used only when long-
term community benefits will be achieved through high quality
development, including, but not limited to, reduced traffic
demands, greater quality and quantity of public and/or private
open space, community recreational amenities, needed housing
types and/or mix, innovative designs, and protection and/or
preservation of natural resources.
(2) Section 325-12 is intended to relate to both residential and
nonresidential development, as well as mixed forms of
development. There may be uses, now or in the future, which are
not expressly permitted by the other terms of this chapter but
which uses would not contravene the long-range Comprehensive
Plan objectives if they adhere to certain predetermined
performance and design conditions. The PUD is intended to be
used to enable these developments to occur even though they
may not be specifically authorized by the City zoning district
regulations.
(3) The PUD is intended to be used in any area located within the
PUDOD. Should a proposed project offer community-wide
benefits, the Common Council may establish a PUD in order to
permit uses not explicitly allowed by the underlying zoning.
(4) Areas may be zoned as a PUD by the Common Council. The
enactment and establishment of such a zone shall be a
legislative act. No owner of land or other person having an
interest in land shall be entitled as a matter of right to the
enactment or establishment of any such zone.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.C, entitled “Establishment and Location”, is
hereby amended in order to remove the sentence that states that the PUD is intended
to be used in industrial zones, and should read as follows:
C.
Establishment and location.
(1) The intent of a PUD is to create self-contained, architecturally
consistent, and compatible buildings, many times with diverse
but related uses. The creation of a PUD must entail sufficient
review to assure the uses within the zone will have negligible or
no significant adverse effects upon properties surrounding the
zone. In reaching its decision on whether to rezone to a PUD, the
Common Council shall consider the general criteria set forth in
this chapter, the most current Comprehensive Plan for the City,
and this statement of purpose.
(2) No PUD shall be established pursuant to Subsection G (13) of this section
unless it is located within the boundaries of the PUDOD. .
Section 4. 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 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Alderperson McGonigal asked whether this would have to be looked at again after a
certain period of time. His concern is whether it’s the right tool.
It was suggested that some of the boundaries should be changed—Collegetown area
and the area near Beverly J. Martin (B.J.M.) School.
Alderperson Smith asked whether the PUD would hinder the historic districts.
It would not. Historic districts are pretty well protected.
Chair Murtagh stated he is comfortable to move it on to Council with the change near
BJM.
Alderperson Brock concurred.
Alderperson Fleming is very hesitant on this. She is concerned that with the
Collegetown guidelines just being put in place that this PUD is just too much.
6) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Planning Board – Special Permits
Re: Proposal to Authorize the Planning and Development Board to approve the
granting of Special Permits. (Currently the Board of Zoning Appeals has this
authority.)
Currently, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to review and grant requests for special
permits. The criteria used to evaluate whether or not to grant a special permit in the City Code,
Chapter 325-3, Definitions and Word Usage is; “SPECIAL PERMIT, The written authorization
by the Board of Appeals to permit, in a given district, a property use which, because of its
nature, location or effect on the surrounding neighborhood, warrants special evaluation of each
individual case.”
The Planning Board, when reviewing site plans, uses much the same criteria as is used by the
BZA to evaluate special permits. During site plan review, the PB looks at impacts a project will
have on the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the greater community. In accordance
with the City Code Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, §276-7 Project review criteria. A. General
criteria: the Planning Board is charged with weighing the impacts of a project by;
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be emphasized in
particular:
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with Chapter 282 of the City
Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited to trees, views,
watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near the site. The protection of existing
mature vegetation, especially trees over eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-height) may be
required unless a justification for their removal can be made by the applicant.
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of importance to the
community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks, neighborhoods, commercial areas,
and historic districts.
After numerous discussions with Gino Leonardi, the Zoning Administrator for the City, it was
thought that the Planning Board was the more appropriate body to review applications for special
permits since the review criteria was so similar to the site plan and environmental review criteria.
We would like to move this idea forward by circulating it for comment. We will bring any
concerns, comments, or suggestions back to the Planning Committee in February for a decision
on whether or not to move this onto Council for a vote.
I have attached the entire section of the Code, so that you can review the section on special
permits as well as the proposed changes.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me
at 274-6566.
Alderperson Lewis asked whether there is a sense of how many special permits
we are talking about.
JoAnn Cornish answered that there aren’t many – maybe 10 at the most.
Alderperson Brock would like clarification that by making this change we aren’t
forgetting something that might slip people up.
Alderperson Smith moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried
Unanimously.
7) Discussion
a) Parks and Recreation Master Plan
No action will be taken tonight. Megan Wilson provided an update to the group.
Some of them will address some of the comments made already. They are
currently working on the actual writing of the plan to address some grammatical
issues and hopefully that will make it easier to read. She appreciates all the
comments, edits, etc.
She was hoping to focus on the big picture and the content. Next month a revised
version will be brought back for further review.
Some of the suggested changes are:
Under-Utilized Parks – this section of the under-utilized parks will be looked at
again with the consultant. She totally agrees with the comment made tonight as to
the amount of time went into the plan and there is only two sentences on the topic
of the under-utilized parks. A justification as to how and why some were marked
as such. It is a very lengthy process. There will be opportunity for more input.
Adopt a Park Program – We would like to add volunteer involvement to help
maintain the parks. The ‘adopt-a-park’ program that currently exists in the City
since 2005 will be further investigated.
Ecologic values of the parks. What park and open space does for the
environment.
We are working on the level of service mapping. There are some corrections that
need to be done. They are in the process of updating this section.
We are also working with the GIS department to where we have parks and where
we don’t and how to get to them.
This will be brought back to the February 2018 meeting for further review and
comment.
Alderperson Brock stated she was very happy with this plan and also the ability to
comment and incorporate changes.
8) Executive Session to Discuss Possible Acquisition of Real Property
Moved by Alderperson Smith to enter into executive session; seconded by
Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously. The group entered into executive
session.
Moved by Alderperson Smith to move out of executive session; seconded by
Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously.
9) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) December 2017
Moved by Alderperson Brock as amended; seconded by Alderperson Smith.
Carried unanimously.
10) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, February 14, 2018 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock,
Donna Fleming, Stephen Smith, and Laura
Lewis
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending:
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Lisa Nicholas,
Deputy Director, Planning and Development;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner; Bryan
McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner; and
Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Alderperson McGonigal
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There were no change made to the agenda.
2) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Amendment to FY17 HUD Action Plan, Amici House,
$90,960 loan to TCAction for unanticipated project expenses
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Smith. Carried unanimously.
No one was present to speak on this topic.
Alderperson Smith moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, voiced her approval of the goals and accomplishments.
John Barradas, 404 East Seneca Street, spoke on the Collegetown form-based
zoning. He is concerned In the CR1 and the CR2 Zones especially with the front
porch and pitched roofs. It makes it hard for architects.
Jonathan Steel, would like to include the three properties in the map and the plan.
Alderperson Brock questioned the use of the word ‘affordable’ in new development.
How will we determine this?
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Chainworks Planned Unit Development – Lisa Nicholas
Lisa Nicholas stated the public hearing will take place next month. She has received a
number of comments which she will compile along with the comments made at the
public hearing and bring that back next month.
Alderperson Brock asked about the playgrounds.
Alderperson McGonigal questioned the height that is being proposed. It was also his
understanding that this would be a built out with some small manufacturing, but he
doesn’t see it.
Nicholas responded the manufacturing piece is in the Town, not the City.
Lisa Nicholas will ask the developer to provide a visual document of where the
buildings will be built and what they will be used for.
Alderperson McGonigal further asked about the proposed 30 ft. setback. He thinks
the setback and height should reflect what the comprehensive plan states.
b) Parks Master Plan – Megan Wilson
Megan Wilson provided an update of the plan. A completely revised draft will be
available 10 days to 2 weeks before the next meeting. The explanation of how the
decision of de-parking some of the existing parks will be included. None of the
changes are major -- more sentence restructuring, etc.
Alderperson Lewis provided an update of the neighborhood meeting for those that live
along Cascadilla Creek. The Superintendent of Public Works, Michael Thorne, stated
he has had conversations with the DEC so the City can become more proactive with
possible ice jams.
5) Discussion
a) 2017 Planning Division Accomplishments and 2018 Work Plan
JoAnn Cornish stated that the 2017 Accomplishments show how busy the Planning
Department has been. She further stated that the highlighted accomplishments are
those that were not already in the work plan. She pointed out that anything that is
added during the year does take away from the proposed work plan.
Lisa Nicholas provided a brief explanation on the Planning Board Annual Report. There
are a lot of numbers.
The Development Projects span a larger time line than a year. It spans from 2009 to
2017.
Low to moderate income follows the HUD definition that is a range of incomes.
Alderperson Brock asked whether the affordable and middle market housing will include
mobile homes.
JoAnn Cornish stated that we all might have to think along those lines. We need to
“think out of the box.” We need to try to make as much affordable housing available to
people.
Alderperson McGonigal asked how we keep people in their homes. He has seen many
homeowners end up selling because they cannot afford to keep them. These tend to
end up being rental homes.
Alderperson Brock stated that accessory apartments seem to have been going away.
Chair Murtagh stated that it may seem that way, but in his opinion they haven’t gone
away.
b) Comprehensive Plan, Phase II – Next Steps
Megan Wilson stated now that Plan Ithaca is done, Phase II is the next step. She
pointed out this phase includes three thematic plans – housing strategy, a transportation
plan, and the flood management plan. From the map she provided shows the different
plan areas. There are neighborhood plans that have been worked on. Collegetown,
Northside, and the West Hill plans have been completed.
The Waterfront and Southside are currently being worked on. Committee members
were asked what should be looked at next. Alderperson Fleming suggested Plan Area
7 (the South Hill neighborhood). Both Alderperson McGonigal and Brock both agreed.
The consensus of the group was to start with the South Hill neighborhood.
Chair Murtagh recommended that Fall Creek and Washington be looked at together.
c) Planned Unit Development – Possible Boundary Adjustment
Megan Wilson stated the adjustments pertain to the CR4 zone. There are three parcels
in this area that were not included in the PUD Overlay District. These were not included
in this overlay district because they serve as nice transition from the different zoning.
Alderperson Fleming started we need to very careful when approving this. It will impact
future Councils to come. We need to have clear criteria.
Alderperson McGonigal stated his concern of the Floral Avenue area being included
since it is the only area in the City that allows for single family homes.
JoAnn Cornish stated that development in a PUD goes through a higher scrutiny than
other development that typically occurs.
Chair Murtagh stated he is comfortable to adjust the PUD boundary. The PUD is a tool.
It’s not a definite. Some developers may not even want to go through the process. The
Council can use the underlying zoning when reviewing the PUD applications.
Alderperson Smith stated he thinks a PUD would serve the City well.
Alderperson Lewis stated that JoAnn’s comment about ‘looking outside the box’ holds
true here as well.
The consensus includes two maybes and three yes votes.
This particular boundary adjustment was set to be reviewed at the February Council
meeting, but JoAnn Cornish stated that this should be pulled from the March Council
agenda. This will provide more time to review area and provide a new map.
d) Proposed Revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance
Bryan McCracken would like Council’s feedback before making a decision to the
ordinance.
Alderperson Fleming asked for clarification as to what is being asked. Should the ILPC
and Planning Board as well as Council hold the same role in determining the decisions
made in the landmark areas of the City?
She would like to see more options not just a yes or no answer. Chair Murtagh agreed.
Alderperson Brock stated she too would like more options available.
Alderperson Fleming would like to see more the City can do to compensate or help
these property owners who make improvements, etc.
JoAnn Cornish stated that both ILPC and Planning Board have stated guidelines and
Council should too.
Chair Murtagh stated the ILPC goes through
6) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Historic Resource Survey Grant Application - Authorization to Apply
Historic Resources Survey Grant Application – Authorization to Apply
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, as a participating municipality in the Certified Local Government (CLG)
program, the City of Ithaca is required to regularly update its inventory of
historic resources, an activity typically conducted through historic resource
surveys, and
WHEREAS, in a recent review of the City’s CLG activities from 2013- 2016, the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) noted that the City had not applied for
CLG funding to conduct a historic resource survey during the evaluation period
and “strongly encourage[d] the City to seek a CLG grant this coming grant
cycle for an historic resource survey.”
WHEREAS, the City’s comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca, also recommends seeking
grant funding to conduct intensive-level surveys of historic resources,
and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning, Building, Zoning & Development proposes to
apply to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Certified Local Government Subgrant program for funds to engage
a consultant to survey and document nineteen (19) selected historic resources
adjacent to the western boundary of the East Hill Historic District, and
WHEREAS, such subgrants are available exclusively to New York State government
entities that have received certification from the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, such as the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the estimated project budget is between $8,000 and $10,000 for which the
CLG Subgrant program guidelines recommend a local match of 40%, which
can be a combination of in-kind, services and/or cash contributions, and
WHEREAS, the Department plans to satisfy the 40% local match through in-kind
contributions of City personnel professional services, and donated volunteer
research work; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommends to
Common Council authorization of the application for a Certified Local
Government Subgrant to survey and document nineteen (19) selected historic
resources adjacent to the western boundary of the East Hill Historic District
along N. Aurora, E. Court, and Linn Streets.
b) Amendment to FY17 HUD Action Plan, Amici House, $90,960 loan to
TCAction for unanticipated project expenses
Amendment to 2017 HUD Action Plan
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) recommends approval of an amendment
to the 2017 HUD Action Plan to provide $90,960 in supplemental loan assistance to Tompkins
Community Action, Inc. (TCAction) for relocation assistance associated with the new Harriet
Giannelis Child Care Center under construction at 661‐701 Spencer Road, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) receives funds annually to address community development
needs through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Entitlement
program, and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the IURA to administer, implement and monitor the
City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance with all applicable regulations, and
WHEREAS, the City adopts an Action Plan annually that identifies a specific list of budgeted
community development activities funded from the HUD Entitlement program, and
WHEREAS, a change in activity funding of more than $25,000 requires Common Council
approval, and
WHEREAS, the need to relocate TCAction offices during construction of the Child Care Center
was unforeseen in the original project budgeting, and
WHEREAS, TCAction requested IURA loan assistance to fund unforeseen relocation expenses,
and
WHEREAS, the IURA approved a $90,960 loan at 2.5% interest for 10 years to TCAction, and
WHEREAS, relocation assistance of administrative offices is a Type II action under the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, so no further environmental review of this action is
required; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby approves the following IURA‐
recommended amendment to the 2017 HUD Action Plan:
Project: Harriet Giannelis Child Care Center, 661‐701 Spencer Road, Ithaca, NY
Sponsor: Tompkins Community Action, Inc.
Amount: $90,960
Description: Supplemental loan assistance for relocation assistance of administrative
offices, and be it further
RESOLVED, that funding shall be derived by transferring $90,960 from the IURA Community
Development Revolving Loan Fund to the 2017 HUD Action Plan.
7) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Planning Board – Special Permits
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Smith. This will be
circulated.
Alderperson Brock asked whether it would be a good move to take it from the BZA to
the Planning Board. JoAnn Cornish responded that these permits are reviewed by
the Planning Board already. They talk about them at the Board meetings and
provide a recommendation to the BZA. There are not many of these permits.
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) October 2017 – Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith.
Carried unanimously.
b) January 2018 – These minutes were not ready for approval.
9) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.