HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-18 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: May 9, 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 – Planning Board, Special Permits
b) Public Hearing – 2018 HUD Action Plan
c) Public Hearing – Amendment to 2017 HUD Action Plan (INHS
scattered sites)
3) Public Comment
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
5) Discussion
a) Green Street Garage Redevelopment
6) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Waterfront Zoning Changes
7) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) 2018 HUD Action Plan
b) Amendment to the 2017 HUD Action Plan (INHS scattered
sites)
c) Parks Master Plan http://www.cityofithaca.org/618/Parks-
Recreation-Master-Plan
d) Local Landmark Designation of the Former No. 9 Fire
Station at 311 College Avenue
e) Planning Board – Special Permits
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) April 2018
9) Adjournment
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Nels Bohn, IURA
Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Dept.
Anisa Mendizabal, IURA
Nels Bohn, IURA
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Bryan McCracken, Historic
Preservation Planner
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
6:00
6:05
6:10
6:15
6:20
6:40
6:45
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:15
9:20
** Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other
scented personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. **
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, May 8, 2018.
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: May 3, 2018
Re: Amendments to the Waterfront Zoning Districts
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding several proposed amendments to
the waterfront zoning districts.
In August of 2017, the Common Council established four new zoning districts for the Waterfront
Study Area. Since then several items have been identified as minor changes to the ordinance that
could improve the implementation of the zoning and allow for the type of development that was
anticipated when the zoning was adopted. In addition, several minor corrections to the existing
code that reference zones that no longer exist have also been identified.
Maximum Story Height
The adopted zoning districts define maximum heights of stories based on a floor to floor
measurement. This measurement works on all stories except the top story of a structure
with a pitched roof, where there is no upper floor from which to measure from. Instead
the roof is considered the upper floor. The roof height is calculated at the median point in
the roof. In structures with pitched roof the median point may be less than 10 feet above
the floor of the top story, but still create a floor to ceiling measurement that is 8 feet.
Staff proposes to amend the minimum story height requirement to read as follows (new
language is bold and underlined):
Minimum Building Height
For Water Dependent Uses there is no minimum building height. For any non-
water dependent uses, buildings must be a minimum of 2 stories in height. The first
story of any new structure must be 12-15 feet in height, measured floor to floor.
Each additional story must be 10-12 feet in height, measured from floor to floor. In
buildings with a pitched roof, a top story contained within the pitched roof
shall be exempt from this requirement. Accessory structures of less than 250 SF
may be 1 story. As an exception, any increase in first floor elevation, as required
to comply with flood plain regulations, can be included in the first story minimum
height requirement, however the first floor should not be less than 10 feet in height
measured floor to floor.
Garage, Public Repair
Add as an allowable use in the Cherry Street District, the following:
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
GARAGE, PUBLIC REPAIR -An enclosed space designed primarily for repair and
service of motor vehicles.
The Cherry Street District is a mixed use light industrial district. While a large operation
for automobile sales and service is not desirable in this location, small operations for
automobile service and repair is appropriate. This use currently exists and is compatible
with the other allowable uses in this district.
Professional Offices
All of the newly established waterfront zoning districts allow for professional offices.
This is an undefined term in our zoning. Staff proposes to add the following definition to
325-3:
BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE - Offices where services are provided that
require specialized training or professional certification including but not limited to
accountant, appraiser, attorney, architect, engineer, surveyor, stockbroker, physician,
dentist, chiropractor, massage therapist, psychologist, and optometrist.
Delete Section 325-16E
Section 325-16E of the City Code refers to height restrictions in the WF zones. These
district have been replaced with the new zoning districts and this section should be
deleted in its entirety.
Delete Section 325-28
Section 325-28 of the City Code refers to the Marine Commercial District. This district
no longer exists and this section should be deleted in its entirety.
Delete Section 325-20D(3)(a)
Section 325-20D(3)(a) references off street parking requirements in the special parking
requirements in the WF zones. The waterfront zoning districts F zones no longer exist.
This section should be deleted and subsequent sections should be renumbered.
Amend Section 325-26
Section 325-26 of the City Code refers to structures along streams and inlets in the
waterfront zoning district. This should be changed to say structures located within the
Waterfront Study Area.
Adult Use Overlay Zone
Section 325-29.1D., describes the locations that adult uses are allowed in the City. When
the map was updated this text was not changed. This section should be replaced with the
following language:
325-29.1 D. Location.
(1) Adult uses may only be located within the Adult Use Overlay Zone, as shown
on the Official City Zoning Map.
If the Committee is in agreement, staff will draft these proposed changes circulate it. We will
return next month with any comments that are received. If you have any concerns or questions
regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
Page 1 of 2
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2018
2018 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to
address community development needs through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development (HUD) Entitlement program from the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program funding sources, and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer,
implement and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance with all applicable
regulations, and
WHEREAS, on an annual basis an Action Plan must be submitted to HUD to access HUD
Entitlement program funding allocated to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development
activities to be funded from the 2018 HUD Entitlement program allocation and associated funds
administered by the IURA, and
WHEREAS, funding available to be allocated through the 2018 Action Plan funding process is
anticipated to include the following:
$634,000.00 CDBG 2018 allocation
$160,000.00 CDBG 2018 projected program income
$38,760.72 CDBG recaptured/unallocated funds
$261,000.00 HOME 2018 allocation
$133,793.78 HOME recaptured/unallocated funds
$100,000.00 Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) miscellaneous revenues
$1,327,554.50 Total, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for
development of the 2018 Action Plan in accordance with the City of Ithaca Citizen Participation
Plan, and
WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2018 meeting, the IURA adopted a draft 2018 Action Plan; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the attached draft
action plan dated April 26, 2018, for allocation of the City’s 2018 HUD Entitlement Program
award along with associated funds listed above, and be it further
Page 2 of 2
RESOLVED, that if the actual amount of CDBG funds received is more than the anticipated
amount, any additional funding shall be allocated to the Economic Development Loan activity
for loans that create employment opportunities for low‐and moderate‐income persons, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that if the actual amount of HOME funds received is more than the anticipated
amount, any additional funding shall be allocated to the Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) set‐aside reserve activity for affordable housing projects, and be it further
RESOLVED, that should the actual amount of CDBG and/or HOME funds received be less than
the anticipated amount, the IURA will develop recommended revisions to the draft Action Plan
for consideration by the Common Council, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the
adopted 2018 Action Plan.
j:\planning\community development\entitlement grants\cdbg 2018\action plan\resolution ‐ pedc adopts draft 2018 action plan ‐ 05‐09‐
18.doc1
IURA Draft 2018 Action Plan, City of Ithaca, NY
#2018 CDBG CDBG (R/U)2018 HOME HOME (R/U)2018 CDBG PI UDAG TOTAL
$634,000 $38,760.72 $261,000 $133,793.78 $160,000 $100,000 $1,327,554.50
HOUSING
1 Neighbor to Neighbor Home
Rehabilitation Love Knows No Bounds 50,000 0 50,000 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
2 Chartwell House Tompkins Community Action 213,921 0 213,921 $75,000.00 $125,000.00 $200,000.00
3 402 S. Cayuga St.*Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS)150,000 907,327 1,057,327 $150,000.00 $150,000.00
4 Housing Scholarship Program The Learning Web, Inc.65,592 72,000 137,592 $65,592.00 $65,592.00
5 Security Deposit Assistance Catholic Charities of
Tompkins/Tioga Counties 48,250 18,511 66,761 $18,250.00 $30,000.00 $48,250.00
6 Security Deposit Inspections TCAction (contract)2,500 0 2,500 $1,058.00 $1,442.00 $2,500.00
7 Scattered Site Phase 2: New
Construction*
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS)100,000 15,940,431 16,040,431 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
8 Ramp Loan Program Finger Lakes Independence
Center (FLIC)25,000 14,780 39,780 $21,758.00 $2,260.00 $24,018.00
9 Mini-Repair Program Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS)32,500 59,564 92,064 $32,500.00 $32,500.00
10 CHDO Reserve To be determined $2,351.78 $2,351.78
687,763 17,012,613 17,700,376 169,258.00$ -$ 234,900.00$ 133,793.78$ 127,260.00$ -$ $665,211.78
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
11 Hospitality Employment Training
Program (HETP)
Greater Ithaca Activities Center,
Inc. (GIAC)125,000 63,350 188,350 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
12 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.100,000 10,421,412 10,521,412 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
13 Volunteer Worker & Job Skills
Training Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc.114,000 51,000 165,000 $40,300.00 $31,500.00 $71,800.00
14 Work Preserve Job Training: Job
Placements Historic Ithaca, Inc.67,500 97,806 185,306 $66,760.00 $740.00 $67,500.00
15 Food Entrepreneurship Program
2.0
Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Tompkins Co.40,548 92,311 132,859 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
447,048 10,725,879 11,192,927 232,060.00$ -$ -$ -$ 32,240.00$ 100,000.00$ $364,300.00
PUBLIC FACILITIES
16 Targeted Urban Bus Stop
Upgrades TCAT 27,000 78,339 105,339 $13,500.00 $13,500.00
17 Final Phase Compliance for
Heating & Roofing
Downtown Ithaca Children's
Center (DICC)29,300 0 29,300 $29,300.00 $29,300.00
18 Domestic Violence Shelter
Renovation Advocacy Center 9,960 112,944 122,904 $9,460.72 $500.00 $9,960.72
66,260 191,283 257,543 13,500.00$ 38,760.72$ -$ -$ 500.00$ -$ $52,760.72
PUBLIC SERVICES
19 Immigrant Services Program Catholic Charities of
Tompkins/Tioga Counties 30,000 52,900 82,900 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
20 Work Preserve Job Training: Job
Readiness Historic Ithaca, Inc.20,000 (see #12 above)(see #12 above)$20,000.00 $20,000.00
21 2-1-1 Information & Referral
Service Human Services Coalition (HSC)20,000 222,070 242,070 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
22 Housing for School Success:
Year #3 Ithaca City School District (ICSD)27,005 0 27,005 $20,300.00 $20,300.00
97,005 274,970 269,075 90,300.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $90,300.00
ADMINISTRATION
23 CDBG Administration IURA 128,882 0 128,882 $ 128,882.00 $128,882.00
24 HOME Administration IURA 26,100 0 26,100 26,100.00$ $26,100.00
25 Economic Development Loan
Fund IURA 0 0 0 $0.00
154,982 0 154,982 128,882.00$ -$ 26,100.00$ -$ -$ -$ $154,982.00
1,453,058 28,204,745 29,574,903 $ 634,000.00 38,760.72$ $ 261,000.00 133,793.78$ 160,000.00$ $100,000.00 $ 1,327,554.50
Minimum Required Set-Aside of HOME Funds for CHDO Activities (15%):$39,150 *2018 CHDO Set-Aside Eligible Projects: #3 and #7 Acronyms:
CDBG (R/U):
HOME (R/U):
LMI = Low & Moderate Income (80% or less of AMI)
R/U = Recaptured/Unallocated (from prior years)
AMI = Area Median Income (Tompkins County)
PI = Program Income
PUBLIC FACILITIES SUBTOTAL:
PUBLIC SERVICES SUBTOTAL:
ADMINISTRATION SUBTOTAL:
TOTALS:
$19,977.80 (2017 unallocated) + $80,000 (2017 #3 402 S. Cayuga St.) + $33,815.98 (2016 #1 Housing for School Success)
$50,000 (2017 #8 Ithaca ReUse Center Expansion) + $2,260.72 (2016 #3 LKNB Homeowner Rehab)
Adopted by IURA April 26,2018
ANTICIPATED FUNDING AVAILABLE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBTOTAL:
HOUSING SUBTOTAL:
Funding
RequestSponsorProject Total Project
Cost
Matching
Funds
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2018
Amendment #3 to 2017 HUD Action Plan
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) recommends approval of an amendment to
the 2017 HUD Action Plan to authorize a loan of up to $160,000 to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services, Inc. (INHS) for the Scattered Site Preservation Phase II project (Project) with funds to be
derived from the IURA‐administered Community Development Revolving Loan Fund, and
Whereas, the Project will renovate, reconstruct or replace some, or all, of the existing rental
housing units located at 502 W. MLK Jr./State Street, 203‐209 Elm Street, 406 S. Plain Street, 111
W. Clinton Street, 227 S. Geneva Street and 301 S. Geneva Street; 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 in the Action Plan requires Common
Council approval, and
WHEREAS, the IURA recommends the addition of the Project as a new activity funded at $160,000
in the 2017 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA‐Administered Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CD‐RLF) utilizes
CDBG funds to make small business loans, but is not authorized to make affordable housing loans,
and
WHEREAS, the IURA recommends reallocating up to $160,000 from the CD‐RLF to the 2017 Action
Plan to fund the Project, and
WHEREAS, CDBG funds are proposed to be used for reimbursement of professional fees and soft
costs, and
WHEREAS, conducting environmental, engineering, architectural and other feasibility studies for
an affordable housing project where such activities do not commit any physical change 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: INHS Scattered Site Preservation Phase II affordable housing project
Sponsor: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
Amount: $160,000
Description: Loan assistance for professional fees and other soft costs for an affordable
housing project, and be it further
RESOLVED, that funding shall be derived by transferring up to $160,000 from the IURA Community
Development Revolving Loan Fund to the 2017 HUD Action Plan account.
j:\planning\community development\loans\cd‐rlf\45‐inhs scattered site phase ii\reso pedc amendment 31 to 2017 action plan ‐ inhs scattered site
phase ii 5‐9‐18.doc
To: Planning & Economic Development Committee
From: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Date: May 3, 2018
Re: Additional Information on the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
As you will recall, the Planning & Economic Development Committee voted on a previous draft of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan at its March 2018 meeting, but the plan was removed from the
Common Council agenda to allow staff to incorporate additional public comments. These comments
have been incorporated into a revised draft, dated April 2018, and this draft is now on the May agenda
for the PEDC’s consideration. The draft plan was distributed in April and is available on the project
website at http://www.cityofithaca.org/618/Parks-Recreation-Master-Plan. An updated resolution to
adopt the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of Phase II of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
is attached. The PEDC completed environmental review for this action at the March meeting, and no
subsequent revisions have been made to the environmental review.
Staff will attend the May 9th meeting to answer any questions about the draft plan. Please feel free to
contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org with any questions or comments.
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
May 9, 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 were submitted by community members and City staff, and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Economic Development Committee voted to adopt the
draft plan at its March 2018 meeting, but the draft was later revised again to incorporate
additional submitted comments, 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 distributed for review by the City of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as part of Phase II
of the Comprehensive Plan is a Type I action, and the Common Council, as lead agency,
has completed environmental review and determined that the action will not have a
significant impact on the environment; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, dated April 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.
January 30, 2018
Adopted Planning and Development Board Recommendation to
Common Council Regarding the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
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, having reviewed the draft Plan at its
December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings, and having received and considered multiple
public comments concerning it, is now recommending several modifications to the November
2017 draft; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board hereby recommends a
modified Parks and Recreation Master Plan for review and adoption by the Common Council as
part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, with this modified version incorporating the
following revisions:
The Planning and Development Board Recommends That the November 2017 Draft Of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Be Revised As Follows Prior to Its Review and
Adoption by Common Council:
A. The ecological value of parkland to the community and the environment should be
prominently discussed and analyzed in the revised Plan. As one Planning Board member
wrote:
This master plan is for a part of the city’s infrastructure: its green infrastructure. It
is not just about grassy areas with a few benches. I see a lot of effort has been put
into the human demographics but there is no mention of the biophysical
conditions of the various sites. Nothing on steep sites, geo/biological qualities
unique to Ithaca. It seems to me to be too technical; too managerial. There is no
vision statement.
Ithaca’s parks could be part of a strategy to maximize the ecological services such
as reducing heat island effects, lessening stormwater surges and improving the
flow of wildlife through the city through interconnected corridors. Using native
plantings and some creative design, 21st century open space planning can
integrate the demands of parking, water management, and energy demands within
pedestrian-oriented development by responding to our innate biophyllic
predilections for green space […] Urban wilding initiatives are springing up
everywhere, such as Toronto, Oslo, Melbourne, cities widely regarded as being
the most desirable places to live.
This master plan should be part of a livable cities initiative, to introduce nature
into the places where most of the people live. Not only do these types of spaces
improve the urban condition, if properly designed, they are less expensive to
maintain while improving urban resiliency, in the face of the challenges of
climate change. How is the city planning to respond to drought, to storm events,
to invasive species? I believe this report is thorough within the boundaries it has
set for itself but I find the boundaries too restrictive. Ithaca can do better than this.
In my opinion, it has to.
B. The section regarding declassification (i.e., removal from park status) of certain City parks
should be substantially revised by providing:
(1) A specific justification (for each such park) setting forth that park’s challenges, and
stating why that park should be considered for declassification.
(2) A listing of the further studies that would be necessary before any park is
declassified, including — for example — analyses of each such park’s ecological
value, historical significance, urban planning attributes, current usage, proposed
future non-park use, etc. (This also affects “Strategy 4.6” in the chart on Page 79).
(3) An explanation as to why four neighborhood parks in the eastern third of the City are
being suggested for declassification, when “Figure 28 - Neighborhood Parks Equity
Map” on Page 47 shows low equity for neighborhood parks in this very same area of
Ithaca (the only substantial such park there being Strawberry Fields). As the Plan
itself states, “In terms of park land, the neighborhood parks have a gap in the eastern
side of the City limits…” (“Equity Mapping ‘Gaps’ and Conclusions” section, Page
46).
(4) A statement that specific appropriate substitute parkland should be identified before a
final decision is made to declassify a park.
(5) A summary of the exact process required to remove park status and to find substitute
parkland, including opportunities for public input.
C. The inconsistency in the recommendation for Strawberry Fields — between the text of the
plan and the action plan at the end of the document — should be resolved.
(1) The text discusses this park becoming a “school park” or a Cornell “teaching
preserve” (Page 66), while the action plan includes the possibility of it being “sold /
swapped for different parkland” (“Strategy 4.3,” Page 79).
(2) Again, if Strawberry Fields is declassified without adding nearby substitute
neighborhood park land, the already-existing inequity in neighborhood parks in the
eastern third of the City would be greatly exacerbated. Additionally, as Page 44
states, “Although the City of Ithaca meets the standards for total park acres, there is a
deficit for neighborhood park acreage.”
(3) Note that, according to the “Chapter Three – Community Needs Assessment,” “small
neighborhood parks” are ranked very high (#8 out of 28) in the “Facility Priority
Rankings” (Figure 13, Page 18), while “Sell or lease small under-utilized parks” has
only 14 percent support as a source of parks revenue in Figure 14 on Page 19.
D. Some inappropriate criteria in the “Land Acquisition Strategies” section on Pages 66 -67
should be revised as follows:
(1) One listed criterion for parkland acquisition — “Major Arterial Access” — is not
appropriate for Ithaca. More appropriate would be “Excellent Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access.”
(2) The criterion “Population (5, 10, 15 minute drive time)” should be revised to the more
appropriate “Population (5, 10, 15 minute walk time)” [emphasis added]. Plan Ithaca
emphasizes that pedestrians should come first in the City’s hierarchy of transportation
modes.
E. One conclusion of the equity mapping section (bottom of Page 46) is that, though Ithaca
has many paved trails, “connectivity throughout the system that connects the entire system
is lacking.” Somewhere the Plan should mention the idea of reviving the Circle Greenway,
a former continuous walking loop around the City’s periphery that — if reestablished —
would link multiple otherwise unconnected current paved trails.
F. Add language stating that three of the many “Funding and Revenue Strategies” options —
specifically, “License Back,” “Corporate Naming Rights” and “Advertising Sales” —
could be problematic if not used within reasonable limits and with great care. (See also
“Strategy 2.2,” Page 77).
(1) “License Back” is described on Page 72 as:
… a source of capital funding in which a private sector entity such as a
development company buys the park land site or licenses the park land and
develops a facility such as a park, recreation attraction, recreation center,
pool, or sports complex; and leases the facility back to the municipality to
pay off the capital costs over a 20 to 30-year period.
While there may be limited instances where some form of this may be a valid
approach, it is nevertheless a technique that, in other cities, has been used as a thinly-
disguised method of privatizing public resources for private gain. Hence, this
approach should only be employed with caution.
(2) The need to avoid inappropriate use of “Corporate Naming Rights” and “Advertising
Sales” strategies should be obvious, but nevertheless should be stated in the Plan. To
mention an extreme example, the notion of renaming “Stewart Park” as “Google
Park” in order to secure a big check from the latter corporation would likely not sit
well with the vast majority of Ithacans.
G. Provide a geographic analysis of park access and income as part of the level of service
mapping.
H. 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.
I. Clarify how the Parks and Recreation Master Plan relates to the City’s designated natural
areas:
(1) The list of “Parks and Park Facilities” extending from Page 5 to Page 7, for example,
includes the “Ithaca Falls Natural Area” and the “Southwest Natural Area / Negundo
Woods.” Additionally, the Plan shows “Greenspace & natural area” at #3 out of 28 in
the “Facility Priority Rankings” chart on Page 18.
(2) But the Plan then rarely refers to these or other natural areas again. Do the
recommendations in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan apply to these natural
areas, or not? If not, are they to receive their own separate master plan at some point
in the future? All this should be clarified within the Plan itself.
(3) Not all parks are intended for active uses; some are intended for preservation or quiet
contemplation. For such parks, or portions of parks, usage figures are beside the
point. The Plan should acknowledge this.
Moved by: Schroeder
Seconded by: Jones-Rounds
In Favor: Blalock, Elliot, Johnston, Jones-Rounds, Lewis, Schroeder
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: One
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: May 3, 2018
At their regular monthly meeting on May 8, 2018, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
(ILPC) will conduct a public hearing to consider the modification of their recommendation to designate
the property located at 311 College Avenue as an individual local landmark. The modification under
consideration is the classification of the original 1894-95 wood-frame portion of the building as a non-
contributing resource due to its apparent lack of architectural integrity. The 1907-08 brick and stucco-
clad addition would be classified as the contributing resource on the parcel. At the conclusion of that
public hearing, the ILPC will likely vote to recommend that Common Council proceed with the modified
designation of this historic resource. An informal poll at the end of a special site visit at the property
indicated that most Commission members were in favor of this modification. Included in this packet is a
copy of the draft resolution to be considered by the ILPC on May 8, 2018; the adopted version will be
circulated to PEDC members after the meeting. Written public comments received as part of the public
hearing will be distributed to the Committee, as well.
Based on the information provided in the Narrative Description of the Property in the Historic Structure
Inventory Form (attached) and their assessment of the building at their special site visit on April 24,
2018, most ILPC members felt that the 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9 Station at 311 College
Avenue did not possess sufficient architectural integrity to reflect its historic significance. As it relates
to historic preservation, architectural integrity is the quantification of surviving original physical features
of a property, including materials, design, and workmanship, and their ability to express the historic
significance of the resource. As noted in their draft resolution, the character defining features of the
1894-95 Former No. 9 Fire Station were the Roman Doric pilasters and engine bay opening on the
primary façade, and the bell-shaped, integral rooftop bell tower. These elements are characteristic of the
Shingle Style and clearly reflect the design aesthetic of the locally prominent architecture firm that
designed the building, Vivian and Gibb. The removal of these elements significantly and adversely
impacted the architectural integrity of the property.
The ILPC’s modified recommendation has been referred to the Planning and Development Board for
review at their May 22, 2018; however, staff feels the modification will not change the Board’s February
27, 2018 report or recommendation to Common Council. A copy of this report is attached.
The Planning and Economic Development Committee is now requested to act on the ILPC’s modified
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 modified designation,
disapproving the modified recommendation, or forwarding the modified recommendation to Common
Council with the Committee’s recommendation to disapprove the designation. 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
ILPC Meeting – 05/08/18
Resolution - RD
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue – Modified Recommendation
to Designate as an Individual Local Landmark
RESOLUTION: Moved by XXX, seconded by XXX.
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 13, 2018, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission recommended to Common Council the designation of the Former
No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue as an individual local landmark after the
conclusion of a properly noticed Public Hearing, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC voted to affirm their recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire
Station at their regular meeting on March 13, 2018, providing supplemental
information to support their recommendation to designate the property, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC’s recommendation was reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee (PEDC) of Common Council at their regular March 14,
2018 meeting, and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration, the PEDC referred the proposed designation back to
the ILPC for modification, citing concerns about the architectural integrity of the
original 1894-95 fire station and its ability to reflect its historic significance, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regularly scheduled meeting on
April 10, 2018 and conducted a properly noticed special site visit on April 24,
2018 to evaluate the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the fire
station, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering modifying the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 8, 2018,
now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC has made the following finding of fact concerning the architectural
integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue:
As noted in the Historic Resource Inventory Form, the original wood-frame
portion of the building was constructed in 1894-95 near the corner of Dryden Rd
and College Avenue (then Heustis Street) and was the first fire station in the area
of East Hill that would become known as Collegetown. This fire station was
moved to 311 College Avenue in 1905 and the brick- and stucco-clad addition
that fronts the street was constructed in 1907-08.
The relocation resulted in the loss of this historic resource’s setting.
ILPC Meeting – 05/08/18
Resolution - RD
A 1905 photograph attached to the Historic Resource Inventory Form for the
Former No. 9 Fire Station shows the character defining features of this early
neighborhood fire station: the Roman Doric pilasters and engine bay opening on
the primary façade, and the bell-shaped, integral rooftop bell tower. These
elements are characteristic of the Shingle Style and clearly reflect the design
aesthetic of the locally prominent architecture firm that designed the building,
Vivian & Gibb.
These primary character defining features, including the rooftop, bell-shaped
tower and the primary façade’s architectural details, were removed after its
relocation in 1905.
To evaluate the impact of these alterations on the architectural integrity of
the Former No. 9 Fire Station, the ILPC considered the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and in this case specifically the
following Standards:
Standard #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property will be avoided.
Standard #4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have
acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and
preserved.
Standard #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity
of the property and its environment.
Standard #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall
be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
The removal of the fire station’s Roman Doric pilasters, fire engine bay, and the
rooftop tower violated the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 9, and 10, and
while these alterations may have gained significance in their own right, they
clearly prevent the public from identifying the resource as a neighborhood fire
station. Furthermore, the 1907-08 addition cannot be removed without further
impairing the integrity of the original fire station and would also result in the loss
of this identified resource that has gained significance in its own right, a violation
of Standard 4.
OR
ILPC Meeting – 05/08/18
Resolution - RD
While the removal of the fire station’s Roman Doric pilasters, fire engine bay,
and the rooftop tower violate the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2, 9, and
10, the structure retains its original form, mass, cladding materials and other
exterior details, reflecting its historic use, architectural style, and design by the
locally prominent architecture firm of Vivian & Gibb.
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission determines that the original 1894-95 portion of the Former No. 9
Fire Station does not possess sufficient architectural integrity to represent the
building’s historic significance, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC identifies the original 1894-95 wood-frame portion of the building
as a non-contributing resource and the 1907-08 addition as the contributing
resource on the parcel, and be it further resolved
RESOLVED, that the ILPC amends their recommendation to Common Council to designate the
Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue to reflect this distinction, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the classification of these resources will be documented in the New York
State Historic Structure Inventory Form for the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue.
OR
RESOLVED, that, based on the findings set forth above, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission determines that the original wood-frame portion of the Former No. 9
Fire Station possesses sufficient architectural integrity to represent its historic
significance, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC affirms its recommendation to Common Council to designate the
Former No. 9 Fire Station without modification.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: 0
Seconded by: 0
In Favor: 0
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION OFFICE USE ONLY
USN:
& HISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY 12188
(518) 237-8643
IDENTIFICATION
Property name(if any)
Address or Street Location
County Town/City Village/Hamlet:
Owner Address
Original use Current use
Architect/Builder, if known Date of construction, if known
DESCRIPTION
Materials -- please check those materials that are visible
Exterior Walls: wood clapboard wood shingle vertical boards plywood
stone brick poured concrete concrete block
vinyl siding aluminum siding cement-asbestos other:
Roof: asphalt, shingle asphalt, roll wood shingle metal slate
Foundation: stone brick poured concrete concrete block
Other materials and their location:
Alterations, if known: Date:
Condition: excellent good fair deteriorated
Photos
Provide several clear, original photographs of the property proposed for nomination. Submitted views should represent the property as a
whole. For buildings or structures, this includes exterior and interior views, general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. Color
prints are acceptable for initial submissions.
Please staple one photograph providing a complete view of the structure or property to the front of this sheet. Additional views should be
submitted in a separate envelope or stapled to a continuation sheet.
Maps
Attach a printed or drawn locational map indicating the location of the property in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely
recognized features so that the property can be accurately positioned. Show a north arrow. Include a scale or estimate distances where
possible.
Prepared by: address
Telephone:email Date
(See Reverse)
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 “Death of Henry W. Sage,” New York Times (Sept. 19,
1897): 13.
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 Redevelopment 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, 1 971.
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)
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.
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
May 9, 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, 2, 4 and 5 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; this recommendation was amended and affirmed at the
Commissions regular meeting on March 13, 2018 meeting, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board filed 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, 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, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC’s recommendation was reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee (PEDC) of Common Council at their regular March 14,
2018 meeting, and after careful consideration, the PEDC referred the proposed
designation back to the ILPC for modification, citing concerns about the
architectural integrity of the original 1894-95 fire station and its ability to reflect
its historic significance, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regularly scheduled meeting on
April 10, 2018 and conducted a properly noticed special site visit on April 24,
2018 to evaluate the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the fire
station, and
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2018
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering modifying the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 8, 2018,
and
WHEREAS, in a resolution dated May 8, 2018, the ILPC modified its recommendation to
designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue to reflect the
following classification of the resource: the 1894-95 wood-frame portion is a non-
contributing resource; and the 1907-08 brick and stucco-clad portion is the contributing
resource, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee finds that the proposed
designation, as modified by the ILPC on May 8, 2018, [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
2. is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
4. is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced and
age; or
5. represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community
by virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Committee recommends to Common Council
approval of the designation, as modified by the ILPC on May 8, 2018, 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 modified
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.
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2018
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: 0
Seconded: 0
In favor: 0
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
May 9, 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, 2, 4 and 5 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; this recommendation was amended and affirmed at the
Commissions regular meeting on March 13, 2018 meeting, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board filed 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, 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, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC’s recommendation was reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee (PEDC) of Common Council at their regular March 14,
2018 meeting, and after careful consideration, the PEDC referred the proposed
designation back to the ILPC for modification, citing concerns about the
architectural integrity of the original 1894-95 fire station and its ability to reflect
its historic significance, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC reviewed the PEDC’s referral at their regularly scheduled meeting on
April 10, 2018 and conducted a properly noticed special site visit on April 24,
2018 to evaluate the architectural integrity of the 1894-95 portion of the fire
station, and
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2018
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the purpose of considering modifying the ILPC’s
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue was conducted at the regularly scheduled ILPC meeting on May 8, 2018,
and
WHEREAS, in a resolution dated May 8, 2018, the ILPC modified its recommendation to
designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue to reflect the
following classification of the resource: the 1894-95 wood-frame portion is a non-
contributing resource; and the 1907-08 brick and stucco-clad portion is the contributing
resource, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee finds that the proposed
designation, as modified by the ILPC on May 8, 2018, [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
2. is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
4. is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced and
age; or
5. represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community
by virtue of its unique location or singular physical characteristics, and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Committee recommends to Common Council
approval of the designation, as modified by the ILPC on May 8, 2018, 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 modified
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.
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
May 9, 2018
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: 0
Seconded: 0
In favor: 0
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: 0
Vacancies: 0
j:\planning\groups\planning and econ dev committee\2018 planning and economic development committee\may\7e -
special permits lead agency resolution.doc
Draft Resolution
May 3, 2018
Adoption of a Zoning Amendment to Authorize the Planning and Development Board to Approve
the Granting of Special Permits.
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 zoning amendment is an “Unlisted Action” pursuant to the City Environmental
Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires 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 zoning amendment to authorize the Planning and
Development Board to approve the granting of Special Permits.
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF)
Project Information
(to be completed by applicant or project sponsor)
1.Applicant/Sponsor:
City of Ithaca Planning Department
2. Project Name:
Adoption of a Zoning Amendment to
Authorize the Planning and Development
Board to Approve the Granting of Special
Permits
3.Project Location:
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, § 325-9
ENTITLED “STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL
PERMITS”
4. Is Proposed Action:
New Expansion
X Modification/Alteration
5. Describe project briefly: The City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to authorize the Planning
and Development Board to approve the granting of special permits where currently the Board of
Zoning Appeals has this authority. The review of Special Permit requests by the Board of Zoning
Appeals considers additional regulations and conditions which apply to certain land uses and
activities which are incongruous or sufficiently unique in terms of their nature, location and effect
on the surrounding environment and the quality of the community to warrant evaluation of each
individual case.
The Planning and Development Board, when reviewing site plans, uses much the same criteria as
is used by the Board of Zoning Appeals to evaluate special permits, such as potential impacts a
project may have on the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the greater community and
may be the more appropriate body to review applications for special permits since the review
criteria is very similar to the site plan and environmental review criteria,
6. Precise Location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map):
N/A
7. Amount of Land Affected: N/A
Initially: ______ Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately: ______ Acres or Sq. Ft.
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use
restrictions?
Yes X No If no, describe briefly: Revision to Zoning Ordinance
9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: N/A
Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space
Commercial Other _________________
Describe:
10. Does action involve a permit/approval or funding, now or ultimately, from
governmental agency (federal/state/local): Yes X No
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type:
Page 2 of 3
11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval?
X Yes No
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type: Board of Zoning Appeals
12. As a result of proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification?
X Yes No
I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: JoAnn Cornish DATE: May 4, 2018
PREPARER'S TITLE: Director of Planning and Development
REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca
Page 3 of 3
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF)
Part II
(To be completed by staff)
In order to answer the questions in this Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), the preparer is to use currently
available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action.
PROJECT NAME: Adoption of a Zoning Amendment to Authorize the Planning and Development Board
to Approve the Granting of Special Permits
Yes No
1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter
more than one acre of land?
□
X
2. Will there be a change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site or to any
site designated a unique natural area or critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
□
X
3. Will the project alter or have any effect on an existing waterway? □ X
4. Will the project have an impact on groundwater quality? □ X
5. Will the project affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? □ X
6. Will the project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? □ X
7. Will the project result in an adverse effect on air quality? □ X
8. Will the project have an effect on visual character of the community or scenic views
or vistas known to be important to the community:
□ X
9. Will the project adversely impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or
paleontological importance or any site designated a local landmark or in a landmark
district?
□
X
10. Will the project have an effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? □ X
11. Will the project result in traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing
transportation systems?
□ X
12. Will the project cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical
disturbance as a result of the project's operation during construction or after
completion?
□
X
13. Will the project have any impact on public health or safety? □ X
14. Will the project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in
permanent populations of more than 5 percent over a one-year period OR have a
negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood?
□
X
15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? X
If any question has been answered YES, a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) is
necessary. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: __ JoAnn Cornish DATE: May 4, 2018
PREPARER'S TITLE: Director of Planning and Development
REPRESENTING: City of Ithaca
Draft Resolution
May 3, 2018
Adoption of a Zoning Amendment to Authorize the Planning and Development Board to
Approve the Granting of Special Permits
Determination of Environmental Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to authorize the Planning and
Development Board to approve the granting of special permits where currently the Board of
Zoning Appeals has this authority, and
WHEREAS, review of Special Permit requests by the Board of Zoning Appeals considers
additional regulations and conditions which apply to certain land uses and activities which are
incongruous or sufficiently unique in terms of their nature, location and effect on the surrounding
environment and the quality of the community to warrant evaluation of each individual case, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board, when reviewing site plans, uses much the
same criteria as is used by the Board of Zoning Appeals to evaluate special permits, such as
potential impacts a project may have on the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the
greater community, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board may be the more appropriate body to review
applications for special permits since the review criteria is very similar to the site plan and
environmental review criteria, and
WHEREAS, this zoning amendment has been reviewed by the Tompkins County Planning
Department Pursuant to §239-l–m of the New York State General Municipal Law, the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted Action” under the City Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted for this action including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the
SEAF prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own,
the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment Form
for the action of to authorizing the Planning and Development Board to approve the granting of
Special Permits, 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.
05/03/18
Page 1 of 16
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, § 325-9 Standards for special conditions and
special permits to authorize the Planning and Development Board
to Approve the Granting of Special Permits
The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ITHACA, CHAPTER 325, § 325-9 ENTITLED “STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL
CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL PERMITS” TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO
AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO APPROVE THE
GRANTING OF SPECIAL PERMITS
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-9 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca entitled “STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS
AND SPECIAL PERMITS” be amended as follows:
§ 325-9 Standards for special conditions and special permits.
A.
Intent. The intent of this section is to set forth additional
regulations and conditions which shall apply to certain land
uses and activities which are incongruous or sufficiently unique
in terms of their nature, location and effect on the surrounding
environment and the quality of the community to warrant special
evaluation of each individual case.
B.
Special conditions. The Director of Planning and Development or
designee shall approve the following uses only when the special
conditions specified in this subsection have been met:
[Amended 1-14-1993 by Ord. No. 93-2; 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-
15[1]]
(1)
[2]Development in R-3 Districts which abut R-1 Districts. The
development of any permitted use in the R-3a or R-3b Zoning
Districts, except a one-family dwelling or a two-family
dwelling, shall be subject to the following special conditions
if the land on which the development occurs directly abuts land
in either the R-1a or R-1b Zoning District.
05/03/18
Page 2 of 16
(a)
Minimum lot size (area in square feet): The required area in
square feet needed to satisfy the minimum lot size requirement
shall be 150% of the requirement shown on the District
Regulations Chart[3] for the R-3a or R-3b District.
(b)
Maximum building height: The maximum building height requirement
shall be the same as the requirement on the abutting R-1a of R-
1b District.
(c)
Maximum percent of lot coverage by buildings: The maximum
percent of lot coverage by buildings shall be 75% of the
requirement shown on the District Regulations Chart for the R-3a
or R-3b District.
(d)
Yard dimensions, side or rear yards: The minimum required side
or rear yard requirement shall be 150% of the requirement shown
on the District Regulations Chart for the R-3a or R-3b District
if the side or rear yard abuts land in the R-1a or R-1b
District.
C.
Special permits.
(1)
Applicability. The uses listed under the district regulations in
§325-8 which require a special permit from the Planning and
Development Board are as follows:
(a)
Cemeteries in all districts.
(b)
Public utility facilities in all residential districts.
(c)
Private schools in all residential districts.
(d)
Nursery schools or child day-care centers in R-2 and R-U
Districts.
(e)
Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2 and
R-3 Districts.
(f)
Hospitals or sanatoriums in R-3 Districts.
(g)
In P-1 Districts, within 200 feet of adjoining residential
districts, any use other than public recreation, classrooms or
living accommodations. In such P-1 Districts, living
accommodations within 200 feet of adjoining residential
05/03/18
Page 3 of 16
districts shall conform to the use and area regulations applying
to the strictest of such adjoining residential districts.
(h)
Signs in all districts, as provided in the Sign Ordinance.[4]
[Amended 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2]
(i)
[5]Home occupations in all Residential Zoning Districts require a
temporary special permit unless the home occupation meets all
the following criteria:
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2; amended 11-4-1992 by Ord. No.
92-16; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
[1]
The occupation does not carry a stock of merchandise or store
materials for resale or use in the occupation, except a
reasonable supply of office supplies customarily incidental to a
small office.
[2]
The occupation does not create traffic or need for parking
beyond that which is customarily incidental to the residential
use of the property. Factors that are not to be considered
incidental to residential use are regularly scheduled events
such as deliveries, client or customer visits or similar events.
[3]
The occupation requires or performs no exterior alterations and
maintains no exterior display visible from outside the residence
(including vehicles with signage parked outside of the
buildings) except a nameplate as permitted by Municipal Code
Chapter 272, Signs.
[4]
The occupation does not create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust
or objectionable effects not customarily incidental and
accessory to the residential use of the property.
(j)
In any district, towers or structures for the transmission or
receipt of radio or other electronic communications signals,
except towers or structures subject to Article V-A of this
chapter, entitled "Telecommunications Facilities and Services,"
unless:
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2; amended 11-4-1992 by Ord. No.
92-15; 12-3-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-20]
[1]
The towers or structures are antennas or satellite dishes with a
maximum dimension of six feet or less;
[2]
Such antennas or satellite dishes are not in a front yard;
05/03/18
Page 4 of 16
[3]
The maximum height (top to bottom) of such antenna or satellite
dish, when combined with attached mounting supports, is 10 feet
or less; and
[4]
Such antennas or satellite dishes, if they are to be located
where they would ordinarily be visible from a public way
adjoining the property, are subject to the following conditions:
[a]
If in a residential zone or on a lot abutting or across a street
or waterway from a residential zone, they shall be screened from
such view.
[b]
In all other locations, they shall be screened from such view or
be of a color and/or in a location that will minimize their
visual impact.
(k)
Towers or structures intended for use in the generation of
electricity for the premises on which such tower is located in
any district.
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2]
(l)
Community or neighborhood gardens in all districts.
[Added 7-10-1985 by Ord. No. 85-6]
(m)
(Reserved)[6]
(n)
Group adult day-care facilities in R-2 Districts.
[Added 5-6-1987 by Ord. No. 87-13]
(o)
Any use not permitted as of right in the I-1 Zoning District.
[Added 11-14-1989 by Ord. No. 89-16]
(p)
Redemption centers in B-2 Districts.
[Added 10-6-1993 by Ord. No. 93-19]
(q)
Bed-and-breakfast homes and bed-and-breakfast inns.
[Added 9-6-1995 by Ord. No. 95-10]
(r)
Neighborhood parking in any district where such parking
is permitted.
[Added 6-6-2012 by Ord. No. 2012-03]
05/03/18
Page 5 of 16
(2)
Required plan.
(a)
A plan for the proposed development of a site shall be submitted
with an application for a special permit. The plan shall
generally conform to the requirements for presentation of plans
set forth in Ch. 290, Subdivision of Land. It shall show parking
areas, traffic areas, landscaping, building arrangement, the
height and number of stories of the buildings, topography and
other pertinent information that may be required by the Board of
Appeals.
(b)
In addition to the plan requirements set forth in
Subsection C(2)(a) above, an applicant for a special permit for
a school or related use must provide the following information:
[Added 11-6-1985 by Ord. No. 85-14]
[1]
Information on the nature of the proposed uses to be conducted
or facilities to be located on the premises, including but not
limited to the courses of study and subjects to be offered, the
size and composition of the student body to be accommodated, the
size of the faculty and staff required, the daily hours of
operation and annual periods of operation and the type and
location of support facilities required.
[2]
Information concerning the type and number of living
accommodations which may be required to serve any increase in
the institution's enrollment resulting from the proposed action,
including the location and availability of those accommodations.
[3]
Documentation of the evaluation of suitable alternative sites
for the proposed activity, together with reasoning supporting
its preference for the site for which a special permit is
sought.
[4]
Detailed information on the occupant load, night operation and
the use of chemical, biological or radioactive agents expected
in connection with the proposed activity.
(3)
Standards applicable to all uses requiring special permits.
No special permit shall be granted by the Planning and
Development Board unless the proposed use or activity meets the
following requirements:
(a)
The location and size of the use, the size of the site in
relation to it and the location of the site with respect to the
05/03/18
Page 6 of 16
existing or future streets giving access to it shall be such
that it will be in harmony with the existing or intended
character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the
appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings or impair
the enjoyment or value thereof.
(b)
Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more
objectionable to nearby property by reason of noise, fumes,
increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, vibration or
flashing lights than would be the operations of any
use permitted without a special permit.
(4)
Specific standards applicable to certain uses
requiring special permits. Certain uses listed in the district
regulations in § 325-8 as requiring a special permit must
conform to the applicable conditions set forth in this
subsection.
(a)
Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2 and
R-3 Districts:
[1]
The applicant must furnish information as to the specific goods
or services offered and the nature, size and hours of operation
of the facility proposed in sufficient detail to enable the
Planning and Development Board to determine whether the use
conforms to the limitations specified in the definition of this
category. (See § 325-3.)
[2]
The response of those notified by the applicant as required in
the procedures set forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed
at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in the
Board's decision to grant the special permit.
[Amended 8-5-1992 by Ord. No. 92-9; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
(b)
Towers or structures for the transmission or receipt of
electronic communications signals in connection with any
commercial or business enterprise in any zone except towers or
structures subject to Article V-A of this chapter, entitled
"Telecommunications Facilities and Services:"
[Amended 12-3-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-20]
[1]
Applicants must furnish information on the nature of the
business requiring such means of communication, including
reasons why such tower or structure must be located on the
premises in question.
05/03/18
Page 7 of 16
[2]
Applicants shall furnish the Planning and Development Board with
scale drawings of the proposal, including, as a minimum, a plot
plan of the premises involved showing lot lines and the accurate
locations of all buildings or structures on the premises and on
each adjacent lot, as well as the locations of the proposed
tower and all guy wires, poles or anchors, and a sketch
elevation of the premises accurately depicting the proposed
tower and its relationship to structures on the premises and to
the nearest structures on adjacent lots.
[3]
Applicants shall provide sufficient information, including
manufacturer's specifications or engineering data, to assure the
Board that the proposed tower or structure will not
unnecessarily obstruct the view from neighboring properties,
that the tower support system meets manufacturer's
specifications or engineering requirements and that the tower
and its supports will be adequately safeguarded against
structural damage by persons or vehicles and against
unauthorized climbing.
[4]
The response of those notified by the applicant as required in
the procedures set forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed
at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in the
Board's decision to grant the special permit.
[Amended 8-5-1992 by Ord. No. 92-9; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
(c)
Towers or structures for use in the generation of electricity
for use on the premises where such tower or structure is located
in any district:
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2]
[1]
Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[2] for radio towers above.
[2]
Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[3] for radio towers above.
[3]
Applicants shall furnish the Planning and Development Board with
sufficient information, including manufacturer's specifications
or engineering data, on the mechanical devices and the materials
in the generating structure to indicate that excessive or
annoying noise will not be produced during prolonged operation
of the generating machinery and that failure of moving parts
during operations will not present a safety hazard to adjoining
properties due to flying debris.
[4]
Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[4] for radio towers.
05/03/18
Page 8 of 16
(d)
Specific standards applicable to schools and related buildings
in all residential districts [R-1 (R-1a and R-1b), R-2 (R-2a, R-
2b and R-2c), R-3 (R-3a and R-3b) and R-U]. Notwithstanding the
criteria set forth in Subsection C(3) above, which criteria
shall not apply hereto, no special permit shall be granted by
the Planning and Development Board unless the proposed use or
activity meets the following requirements:
[Added 11-6-1985 by Ord. No. 85-11; amended 1-8-1990 by Ord. No.
90-2]
[1]
If the proposed use is the expansion of an educational use, then
the applicant must show a need to expand into the residential
area rather than into a less-restrictive area. No special
permit shall be granted by the Planning and Development Board
unless the applicant can demonstrate that there is no reasonable
alternative to location or expansion on the site proposed.
[2]
The location and size of the use, the size of the site in
relation to it, the operations in connection with the use and
the parking and traffic related to the operations shall not be
such as to create a significant hazard to the safety or general
welfare of the surrounding area.
[3]
The proposed use or operation shall not produce or present
substantial danger of excessive noise, noxious odors, noxious or
harmful discharge, fire or explosion, radiation, chemical or
toxic release or other conditions injurious to the health or
general welfare of occupants of nearby properties.
[4]
The size and use of the facility or the concentration with
similar facilities in the neighborhood shall not be so
substantially out of proportion to the character of the
neighborhood as to jeopardize the continued use of the
neighborhood for residential purposes.
(e)
Community or neighborhood gardens in all districts:
[Added 7-10-1985 by Ord. No. 85-6]
[1]
Applicants shall provide evidence of approval for such use from
the owner of the property on which the gardens are to be
located.
[2]
Applications shall provide evidence that the area to be used
will at all times be operated in a responsible manner so as not
to present a nuisance to or interfere with the use and enjoyment
of neighboring private or public property. Such evidence shall
05/03/18
Page 9 of 16
designate at least one responsible adult, who shall be a
participant in the gardening, a representative of the sponsoring
organization or the owner of the subject property, to administer
or coordinate the operation and to act as a contact person
therefor.
[3]
Applications shall be submitted in writing to the Department of
Planning and Development and shall include:
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[7]]
[a]
The name, address and phone number(s) of the contact person.
[b]
A description of the refuse disposal procedure to be followed
and of the intended use of organic materials, chemical
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
[c]
A site plan showing the proposed locations of all features of
the site, including access point(s) and any of the required
parking spaces that may be located on adjacent property.
Applicants, or the administrator/coordinator of the garden area,
shall ensure the following:
[a]
That the gardening activity on individual plots is confined to
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except that power
machinery shall not be operated before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00
p.m.
[b]
All organic refuse and trash from the gardening operations is
promptly and properly disposed of on at least a weekly basis and
that, pending disposition, it is stored neatly in such a way
that it does not produce offensive odors or attract dogs,
raccoons or vermin.
[c]
That power or motorized machinery used in preparing and
maintaining individual plots is no larger than that normally
used in connection with home gardening, e.g., a typical walk-
behind rototiller.
[d]
That farm tractors or other heavy machinery is not employed on
the site except for initial site development and for annual
spring preparation and fall cleanup, if necessary; and in those
instances it shall be operated only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. weekdays.
[e]
That mulch, compost or organic fertilizer employed in the
gardening is confined to the site in a neat and orderly manner
and that no fresh manure shall be used or composted.
05/03/18
Page 10 of 16
[f]
That noxious fertilizers or noxious chemicals employed in the
gardening are used only with the knowledge and consent of all
gardeners using the site, all adjoining property owners and, in
the event that adjoining properties are rental residential
properties, with the knowledge and consent of the head of each
tenant household.
[g]
That no flammable liquids will be stored on the site.
[h]
That noise and odors produced in connection with the gardening
activity will be no greater than those normally associated with
home gardening.
[i]
That City residents of the area nearest the site will be given
an opportunity to obtain plots in the allocation of plots on a
first priority basis.
[j]
Other City residents will be given an opportunity to obtain
plots in the allocation of plots on a second priority basis.
[k]
That unused portions of the site will be maintained in a neat
and orderly manner at all times.
[l]
That, at the end of each gardening season or within 30 days of
revocation of a permit, whichever occurs first, the entire site
will be cleaned and left with a neat appearance.
[5]
In addition, the applicable portions of § 325-15A and C shall be
observed.
[6]
In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an
interim nature, may occupy only a portion of a parcel and may be
located on property unsuited for other uses permitted under this
chapter, the district regulations specified for permitted uses
under § 325-8 of this chapter shall be superseded, where
applicable, by the following regulations for community or
neighborhood gardens:
[a]
Minimum lot size: none.
[b]
Width in feet at the street line: none required; however, sites
lacking street frontage shall be accessible to vehicles and
pedestrians via a right-of-way of at least eight feet in width.
[c]
Structures permitted: No structures for human habitation or
occupancy shall be permitted except for a weather shelter for
05/03/18
Page 11 of 16
gardeners, which may have a maximum floor area of 64 square
feet. A light accessory structure for storage of gardening
equipment and materials for plant propagation, with a maximum
floor area of 64 square feet, may be erected separately or
attached to the weather shelter. If necessary, a well-housing
structure for the production of water for garden use may be
erected with permission of the owner of the site.
[d]
Parking and loading space: At least one off-street space on or
immediately adjacent to the site shall be provided for the use
of the gardeners for each 15 individual garden plots on the site
or portion thereof.
[e]
Yard setbacks shall not be required, except that the provisions
of §§ 325-17B and C and 325-25 of this chapter shall apply to
any plantings, fences or accessory structures on the site.
[7]
The response of those notified by the applicant as required in
the procedures set forth in § 325-40, together with any other
written comment received by the Planning and Development Board
before the hearing, as well as that comment expressed at the
public hearing, with primary consideration given the wishes of
residents living within 200 feet of the property, should be a
principal factor in the Planning and Development Board's
decision to grant or deny the special permit. [Amended 8-5-
1992 by Ord. No. 92-9; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
[8]
In granting a special permit for community or neighborhood
gardens, the Planning and Development Board may prescribe any
conditions that it deems necessary or desirable, including but
not limited to additional off-street parking spaces, so that the
spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public safety and
welfare secured and substantial justice done.
[9]
Special permits for neighborhood and community gardens shall be
reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development or designee
at least annually for compliance with this section and with any
conditions established by the Planning and Development Board.
If, following such review or investigation of any complaint, the
Director of Planning and Development or designee determines that
a substantial violation exists, notice of such violation shall
be mailed to the contact person designated in accordance with
Subsection C(4)(e)[2] above, requiring that such violation be
corrected within 15 days. If satisfactory correction is not
made, the permit may be revoked by the Director of Planning and
Development or designee. Appeals to such revocation shall be
05/03/18
Page 12 of 16
made to the Planning and Development Board as provided in § 325-
41 of this chapter.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[8]]
[10]
Special permits for neighborhood and community gardens shall be
revoked automatically if the site is not used as a community or
neighborhood garden, as that term is defined in § 325-3, for one
complete garden season.
(f)
Group adult day-care facilities in R-2 Districts: Applicants
shall furnish information sufficient to describe the scope of
the proposed activity, including the size of the building, the
number of clientele, the operating hours, off-street parking
availability, the number of employees and the proximity to other
group adult day-care facilities in the neighborhood. Prior to
granting any special permit for such use, the Planning and
Development Board must find that the activity is compatible with
the character and quality of the neighborhood in which it is to
be located.
[Added 5-6-1987 by Ord. No. 87-13]
(g)
Bed-and-breakfast homes and bed-and-breakfast inns:
[Added 9-6-1995 by Ord. No. 95-10]
[1]
The Planning and Development Board shall only grant a special
permit for a bed-and-breakfast home or a bed-and-breakfast inn
(in those districts allowing such uses) if the
following special conditions are met and adhered to during the
period the bed-and-breakfast use is in operation:
[a]
Each such use before it commences must obtain a certificate of
occupancy from the Director of Planning and Development or
designee.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[9]]
[b]
A bed-and-breakfast home must be owner-occupied and owner-
managed. A bed-and-breakfast inn must be owner-managed.
[i]
An owner-occupant is an individual who owns at least a 1/2
interest in the real estate on which the bed-and-breakfast home
is located and also owns at least a 1/2 interest in the business
of running the bed-and-breakfast home and who primarily resides
in and lives in the bed-and-breakfast home for at least 80% of
the days (in each calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home
is open for business as a bed-and-breakfast home.
05/03/18
Page 13 of 16
[ii]
An owner-manager is an individual who owns at least a 1/2
ownership interest in the real estate on which the bed-and-
breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn is located and also owns
at least a 1/2 interest in the business of the bed-and-breakfast
home or bed-and-breakfast inn and who is primarily responsible
for the management of the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-
breakfast inn and is physically present in the bed-and-breakfast
home or bed-and breakfast inn at least once per day for 80% of
the days (in each calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home
or bed-and-breakfast inn is open for business.
[c]
Bed-and-breakfast homes or inns in residential zones must be
compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. No
alterations to the exterior of the house for the purpose of
establishing or expanding bed-and-breakfast operations shall be
permitted except for routine maintenance, alterations not
requiring a building permit, restoration or requirements related
to safety or handicapped accessibility. There shall be no
exterior indication of a business, except the one permitted sign
as indicated below and required parking. Drawings illustrating
any proposed exterior modifications must be submitted with
the special permit application.
[d]
Drawings illustrating any major proposed interior modifications
(excluding plumbing, wiring or other utility work) directly
related to establishing or continuing the bed-and-breakfast use
must be submitted with the special permit application. Examples
of major interior modifications are the removal, replacement or
installation of staircases or partitioning walls.
[e]
No cooking facilities are permitted in the individual guest
rooms.
[f]
Food service shall only be provided to guests taking lodging in
the bed-and-breakfast home or inn.
[g]
In R-2 Zones, no bed-and-breakfast home may be located on a lot
closer than 500 feet to any other lot containing a bed-and-
breakfast home, with only one such establishment permitted per
block face.
[h]
There shall be no more than one sign. Such sign shall not be
self-illuminated and shall not exceed five square feet in area.
Additional requirements described in Chapter 272, entitled
"Signs," of this Code shall be met.
[2]
05/03/18
Page 14 of 16
The response of those notified by the appellant as required in
the procedures set forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed
at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in the
Planning and Development Board's decision to grant or deny
the special permit.
[Amended 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
[3]
A special permit granted for a bed-and-breakfast home located in
an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years. All the
requirements pertaining to the application for and granting of a
first-time special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home shall
also apply to the application for and granting of a
renewed special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home located in
an R-2 Zone, including the notification procedures set forth in
§ 325-40 and the expiration of such renewed special permit after
five years.
[Amended 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
(h)
Temporary special permits for home occupations.
[Added 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
[1]
Spaces in which home occupations are conducted must comply with
the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.
[2]
A home occupation temporary special permit shall be issued for a
three-year period.
[3]
The response of those notified by the appellant as required in
the procedures set forth in § 325-40, as well as that expressed
at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in the
Planning and Development Board's decision to grant the temporary
home occupation special permit.
[4]
Renewals. The renewal of temporary home occupation special
permits for additional three-year periods shall be granted by
the Director of Planning and Development or designee following
inspection of the premises by the Department of Planning,
Building and Development, submission of a renewal application
form issued by the Department of Planning and Development and an
affidavit stating that the conditions as originally set forth to
the Planning and Development Board have not changed in any way.
It is the responsibility of permit holders to renew their
temporary special permits. The Director of Planning and
Development or designee shall determine that the premises still
meet the standards of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention
and Building Code and that the original qualifying conditions
still exist. The Director of Planning and Development or
05/03/18
Page 15 of 16
designee is authorized to charge a fee of $30 for each renewal
inspection conducted.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[10]]
[5]
Revocation. The Director of Planning and Development or designee
shall revoke any special permit issued hereunder, should the
applicant or the applicant's tenant violate any provision of
this chapter or any condition imposed upon the issuance of
the special permit.
[6]
Periodic review. The Department of Planning and Development
shall review the effects of this section at least every five
years to determine the long-term effect on the residential
character of the neighborhoods.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[11]]
[11]
Editor's Note: This ordinance provided for an effective date of
1-1-2014.
(5)
In the I-1 Zone and the Cherry District, uses other than
those permitted under § 325-8 may be permitted by special
permit upon a finding by the Planning and Development Board and
concurrence by the Common Council that such use shall have no
negative impact by reason of noise, fumes, odors, vibration,
noxious or toxic releases or other conditions injurious to the
health or general welfare.
[Added 11-14-1989 by Ord. No. 89-16]
D.
The Board shall deny a special permit in all instances where it
finds that a proposed use would have a significant negative
impact on traffic, congestion, property values, municipal
services, character of the surrounding neighborhood, or the
general plan for the development of the community. The granting
of a special permit may be conditioned on the effect the use
would have on traffic, congestion, property values, municipal
services or the general plan for the development of the
community. The applicant may be required by the Planning and
Development Board to submit plans for the site and for parking
facilities and to disclose other features of the applicant's
proposed use so as to afford the Planning and Development Board
an opportunity to weigh the proposed use in relation to
neighboring land uses and to cushion any adverse effects by
imposing conditions designed to mitigate them. If the Planning
and Development Board finds that the adverse effects cannot be
sufficiently mitigated, then the Planning and Development Board
shall deny the special permit.
05/03/18
Page 16 of 16
Section 2. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 11, 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; Jennifer
Kusznir, Senior Planner; Nels Bohn, Director,
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency; Tom Knipe,
Deputy Director, Economic Development; and
Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Alderperson Nguyen
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
Added to the agenda as Item # 7 (d) – clarification of the PUD Overlay District
from last month’s Council meeting pertaining to the CR4 zoned properties on
Linden Avenue.
2) Public Comment
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, commented on affordable housing in the City which
means inclusionary zoning. She would like to see 20%. As for the CIITAP, there
should be a higher percentage.
Fay Gougakis, 171 East State Street (Commons), she commented on the fact that
she’s breathing dirty air and dust every day. Dirty air is everywhere. Seneca
Street and the Commons smell like chemicals. We need to monitor the air quality.
She would like to see a moratorium to halt the development. During a phone call
she placed to the State she found out that the City is a private entity. They don’t
have to do the monitoring, but could be forced to do so. She also asked about the
times contractors may work on the Commons.
Stephanie Hesloj, Jacksonville, spoke on the CIITAP. She doesn’t think it is
working. She doesn’t own a car so it’s very difficult to get around in Tompkins
County. She cannot afford to live in the City. The new micro apartments being
built in the City under CIITAP are still too expensive.
Shari Korthus, 502 N. Albany Street, is against the CIITAP. She provided her
calculation of this program. What the City is doing is allowing the high-end
developers who are getting these tax abatements. The projections that are
provided are not accurate.
John Guttridge, 419 South Titus Avenue. CIITAP is a crucial program in the City.
Many people are moving into the City. The housing development was not kept up
until the CIITAP. If we don’t develop in the core, we will lose a lot of green space
available in the perimeter areas. Development is a math problem. We just need
to make sure we’re doing the math correct.
Guillermo Metz, 103 Dwyer Hill Road, promotes the green building policy project.
He commends Nick Goldsmith and Noah Demarest. They have worked hard to
be able to include everyone.
John Driscoll, 425 North Cayuga Street, a long-term resident of the City. He has
away for a while and has seen many changes. He spoke on the Green Street
proposal which only had one developer submit a proposal. He questions why the
Green Street project doesn’t have any community value. We don’t need 13-story
buildings.
Elmer Ewing, 1520 Slaterville Road. He urges the City to approve the Green
Building Policy project pronto. We need to pay major attention to methane. It
decays more rapidly that carbon monoxide. It’s a good document and hopes it
passes.
Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, long term City resident. He supports the
Green Building Project. The City needs to focus on the contamination of the prior
Emerson Site, Ithaca Gun, and Nates Floral Estates. These areas need to get
cleaned out. They are not suitable for human occupancy
Brian Eden, 147 N. Sunset Drive, spoke on the ChainWorks project. It has many
positive things about it. The site needs to be cleaned up first. He also spoke on
the Green Building Policy. There was an energy action plan for 2012 to 2016.
There hasn’t been one since.
Denise Katzman, 419 W. Buffalo Street. The City has an anti-idling law that is not
enforced. This needs to be reviewed and enforced.
Joe Wilson, 75 Hurst Hill Road, Dryden, is in favor of the Green Building Policy.
The County’s goals indicate we are falling behind in the amount of the emissions
of greenhouse gases. This policy needs to be put in place. He provided his
comments to the committee members. The policy as it stands shows that there
won’t be any change for another 20+ years.
Bob Nape, Lansing, owner of Solar ________. He supports the Green Building
Policy. We have this myth that the existing solar technology is not doing what we
want it to. They are solid. Solar heat pumps are extremely efficient.
Deborah Dawson, 51 Dart Drive, Village of Lansing. She is thankful for the new
Green Building Policy. She suggested the recommendations of the Green
Building Policy could be included in the CIITAP.
Alderperson Brock thanked everyone for their comments and the concerns that
were expressed about contamination. She stated she didn’t agree with John
Guttridge suggesting that development is a math problem that needs to be done
right. She commented
JoAnn Cornish informed the group that at times there will be changes made to
start/end times when the work needs to be done without a break. If it’s going to
be particularly noisy, we try to extend the time of construction. 7:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m. is the typical work hours.
Alderperson Brock asked what the City is doing about the dust generated by the
construction. JoAnn Cornish stated they are monitored and if need be will be
talked to in order to enforce the dust be kept to a minimum.
3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
There were not announcements, updates and reports.
4) Discussion
a) Chainworks Planned Unit Development – Permitted Uses
Alderperson Brock voiced her concern of the CW3A. She would like a new zone
created as CW3 to be strictly residential to serve as a buffer zone. It was decided
that the transition zone will be looked at further to determine what should be
allowed and not allowed.
Chair Murtagh asked for clarification regarding the industrial uses. He asked what
the buffer is for the noise that is generated.
C.J. Randell stated that a number of permitting activity that is allowed has been
added.
Jamie Fagan stated that the same owner is going to own both buildings—
residential and industrial.
Alderperson Lewis commented on the off-street parking regarding the use of the
word of garage.
Alderperson Brock is also concerned that parking, bathroom structures, etc. be at
least 50 feet away for a residential unit.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund – West Hill
JoAnn Cornish stated that this particular request does not fall into the criteria of this
program. The $300 comes from the Planning Division budget. She would not like to
see this happen again and again if this is approved.
Alderperson Lewis stated that in the Fall Creek neighborhood there are volunteers
who take part in updating and maintaining a list serve.
Alderperson Brock stated she appreciates the members’ comments, but also stated
that the West Hill is quite huge.
Alderperson Lewis commented she voted against this, but may vote for it if it was
smaller amount.
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Fails 1-4.
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for
IthacaWest, April 2018
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood
Improvement Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents
seeking to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community
improvement and to encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a
general neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select
few residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding
include but are not limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and
neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application
specifying other project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be
covered by the fund and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to
approve applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for
approved activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, on behalf of IthacaWest, Regi Teasley and Pat Dutt have submitted an
application for up to $300 in reimbursement funds to off-set expenses related to the
creation and distribution of postcards to promote the group’s website and list serve,
and
WHEREAS, the postcards will be distributed to 944 households in the City and Town of
Ithaca; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the
funding request from Regi Teasley and Pat Dutt in the amount of $300 for
reimbursement upon presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
b) Green Building Policy Report
Nick Goldsmith and Noah Demarest were in attendance for this agenda item.
Alderperson Fleming asked for their reactions to the comments made here tonight.
Tatum Engineer stated he is an advocate for green policies and reducing carbon
monoxide emissions.
The project leaders stated that they feel the developers will get on board after the
policy is set in place. There hasn’t been a great deal of comment from developers, but
comments have been voiced by many.
Alderperson Lewis commended the team with the amount of time and work they have
put into this project.
Chair Murtagh also commended the policy team for a job well done.
Resolution to Adopt Green Building Policy Report and to Direct Staff to Codify
Policy Recommendations for Review and Consideration of Adoption
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously with a hyperlink added for the report.
WHEREAS the City has adopted a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by
2050, and nearly three quarters of the Ithaca community GHG emissions come from
residential and commercial buildings; and
WHEREAS the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan suggests “Enact more stringent local
energy codes based on standards for new and existing buildings and voluntary
certification programs” and The City’s Energy Action Plan recommends “Encourage
sustainable and energy efficient development (and re-development) through green
building policies and implementation of advanced energy codes” and “Consider
regulatory tools to encourage/require higher energy efficiency standards for rental
housing;” and
WHEREAS with the aid of a consultant team, as part of the Green Building Policy
project, the City has conducted a comprehensive examination of our existing and future
building stock, as well as green building standards for new construction and potential
economic, social and environmental impacts of policies which incentivize or mandate
those standards; and
WHEREAS the Green Building Policy report provides policy recommendations for
energy efficiency requirements and related incentives to substantially reduce carbon
emissions in all new buildings, while emphasizing and supporting affordability; and
WHEREAS additional work, such as research (possibly in conjunction with a technical
consultant) and stakeholder outreach, is needed to provide a level of detail sufficient to
develop code language for a green building policy; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca adopts the Green Building
Policy report, dated April XX, 2018; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca directs staff to perform
additional research and stakeholder outreach and codify the policy recommendations
contained in the Green Building Policy report for review and consideration of adoption.
c) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing Requirements
Chair Murtagh stated he put this item down for action, but understands that there may
be more work to be done.
Alderperson Smith stated that with these kind of changes if there’s any perception that
the committee will make changes to this proposal, but the full Council reverses the
changes, developers will wait it out until it’s finalized.
Alderperson Fleming asked about how ‘for sale’ properties will be handled. The answer
was they are not included.
Alderperson Brock stated she is uncomfortable providing tax abatements anywhere with
the boundary limits. There should be a higher standard. She doesn’t support CIITAP
for luxury apartments. Developers that will only raise the value of the property. It
should be based more on a project’s merits, not just being within the said boundary.
Requiring affordable housing within the City is just as important as a Green Building
project. She thinks we need to rethink what we’re doing.
Alderperson Brock further commented that requiring affordable housing in the City is
just as important as a Green Building Policy.
We are not offering a tax abatement for a Green Building – we are requiring it.
Alderperson Lewis stated the very same comments were said in previous meetings that
the affordable housing would be marked as studios.
Alderperson Smith agreed with the comments made regarding the affordable housing.
Alderperson Brock is very apprehensive that anyone will develop affordable housing
without a tax abatement.
There were multiple questions left unanswered.
After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that this will come back to this committee next
month with more detail on the calculations.
d) Amendment to PUDOD Overlay District. CR4-Zoned Properties on Linden
Avenue.
** This is an ordinance to clarify the boundary of the PUDOD that was adopted
at March’s Council meeting. At the meeting, the ordinance was amended on the
floor and there was some confusion about which parcels were included. In order
to make sure that what was adopted matched the intent we distributed again at
the April Planning Committee meeting. **
The ordinance was not changed from the Council meeting. It only clarifies the
boundary map at the corner of Dryden Road and Linden Avenue.
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to
Clarify the Boundaries of the Recently Established Planned Unit
Development Overlay District (PUDOD)
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-____
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried
Unanimously.
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, the Common Council adopted
legislation creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay District
(PUDOD), and
WHEREAS, prior to voting on the establishment of the PUDOD, the
Common Council amended the ordinance to include the parcels
located along Linden Avenue that were zoned CR-4, and
WHEREAS, along Linden Avenue there are two sections of
properties that are zoned CR-4, however, it was the intent of
the Common Council to include the contiguous stretch of CR-4
only properties that includes the following parcels: 64.-9-6,
67.-3-1, 67.-3-31, 67.-3-30, 67.-3-29, and 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 in order
to change the boundaries of the PUDOD to include the following
tax parcels:
64.-9-6, 67.-3-1, 67.-3-31, 67.-3-30, 67.-3-29, and the full
boundaries are as shown on the map entitled “Boundary for the
Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)-April 2018”,”
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, “Boundary for
the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) –April 2018”.
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 ), the boundaries of which can
be seen on the attached map, “Boundary for the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District (PUDOD) –April 2018”.
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.
6) Action Items (Voting to Send to Circulate)
a) Planning Board – Special Permits
With the changes to the current ordinance, the Planning Board would be able to
vote on special permits. This will free up BZA responsibilities.
Alderperson Lewis moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) March 2018
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously as amended.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.