See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311968813 Ithaca's Greater Southside Neighborhood Planning Study Technical Report · December 2016 CITATIONS 0 READS 45 14 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Sustainable Adaptation of Modern Landscapes, Former Mega-Event Sites View project A World's Fair Landscape in Time: A Study of Flushing Meadows Corona Park View project Jennifer Minner Cornell University 31 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Bridgit Hohlfeld Cornell University 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Zhiyin Pan The Brookings Institution 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Zoe Siegel Cornell University 2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer Minner on 30 December 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Analysis of Plan Ithaca and the Southside Flowering Plan ...................................................................... 6
Zoning and Infill Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 7
Neighborhood Boundaries and Community Outreach Recommendations ............................................ 7
The Southside Flowering Plan: Connections and Contradictions with Plan Ithaca ......................................... 8
Relationship of Southside Flowering Plan to Plan Ithaca ............................................................................ 8
Ideas and Sections that Coincide or Conflict with Plan Ithaca ................................................................ 9
Assessment of the Completeness of the Southside Flowering Plan ......................................................... 10
Strengths of the Southside Flowering Plan ........................................................................................... 10
Weaknesses of the Southside Flowering Plan ....................................................................................... 11
Key Takeaways to Inform the Planning Process ........................................................................................ 11
Existing Conditions: A Demographic Snapshot of the Southside Communities ........................................... 12
Population Change ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Age Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Income and Poverty ................................................................................................................................... 24
Increase in Renters ................................................................................................................................ 29
Implications for the Public Outreach Strategy .......................................................................................... 38
Infill and Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 38
Plan Ithaca, Current Zoning, and Current Land Use .................................................................................. 38
Infill Feasibility Analysis: Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 49
Conclusions from Envision Tomorrow Exercise ......................................................................................... 58
3
Public Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Public Participation Overview: ................................................................................................................... 60
ORGANIZE ................................................................................................................................................... 62
SHARE BACK ............................................................................................................................................... 70
We wish to thank and acknowledge the following people for their insight into this report through
interviews and feedback.
Jennifer Cleland JoAnn Cornish Karl Graham Daniel Krall Amanda Micklow Jennifer Minner Seph Murtaugh CJ Randall Larry Roberts Eric Rosario Asha Sanaker Bob Stundtner David West Megan Wilson
Supported with an Engaged Cornell Curriculum grant.
Special thanks to Zhiyin Pan for editing and refining after the workshop.
5
Introduction
The Greater Southside of Ithaca,
New York, is comprised of four
neighborhoods located south and
west of downtown Ithaca. These
neighborhoods and their
boundaries were defined during the
Southside Flowering Planning
Process in 2006 as Henry St. John,
Historic Southside, South of the
Creek and Spencer Road. These
neighborhoods are bounded on
their easterly leg by South Cayuga
Street, on the west by New York
State Route 13 – Meadow St., on
the north by W. State Street and on
the south by Spencer Road.
The neighborhoods have notable
natural and community resources
including Six Mile Creek, the
Southside Community Center, and a
number of churches and schools.
Historically, the Greater Southside
was predominately African
American and home to many
thriving community centers and minority owned businesses. The demographics of the
neighborhoods have shifted in recent years, with an increasing proportion of White residents,
as well as a growing number of renters and middle and upper middle income people moving
into the area.
In July of 2001, Cornell University City and Regional Planning students and faculty from the City
of Ithaca Planning Department began a planning process for the Greater Southside Area. This
process was inspired by the approval of economic development plans for the City in 1999 and a
subsequent neighborhood planning resolution in 2001. This largely participatory process
included Southside residents, business owners, landlords, church and civic leaders, liaisons from
local organizations, and culminated in “Southside Flowering: A Neighborhood Action Plan” (SFP)
in 2003, with later versions published through 2006. Although there is evidence that aspects of
the SFP have been achieved, the plan itself was never adopted. In September of 2015, the City of
Ithaca adopted an updated comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca. The larger Southwest community is
an identified focus area in Plan Ithaca, and creating a new plan for the Greater Southside is on
the agenda for Phase 2 of Plan Ithaca implementation.
Purpose Students in Cornell’s Department of City and Regional Planning worked throughout the spring
semester of 2016 to assist the City of Ithaca’s Planning Department in designing a participatory
planning process for a new neighborhood plan that will align with the goals and objectives of Plan
Ithaca. The purpose of this report is to guide the City in creating a meaningful planning process
for the Greater Southside. We hope that this report offers the City of Ithaca a starting point for
organizing the next Greater Southside planning process.
Methods This report is divided into four major sections: an analysis of the relationship between Plan Ithaca
and the Southside Flowering Plan; an outline of the neighborhood’s existing conditions and a
discussion of neighborhood boundaries; a discussion of infill and zoning considerations; and a
strategy for public outreach. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to derive the
information in each section, outlined here.
Analysis of Plan Ithaca and the Southside Flowering Plan We analyzed the SFP according to four different methodologies to find connections and
contradictions with Plan Ithaca. Specifically, we determined how well Plan Ithaca’s thread‐
through themes of Equity, Sustainability, and Collaboration applied to the SFP, whether the SFP
accurately reflected or conflicted with ideas of Plan Ithaca, areas of the SFP that should be
expanded upon, and identified key concepts from Plan Ithaca that were not addressed in the SFP.
Existing Conditions The class used data gathered from site visits and online resources to analyze neighborhood
trends and current conditions. We created visual representations of housing, demographic,
land uses, economic, natural and cultural resources, and transportation conditions.
7
Zoning and Infill Analysis Based on Plan Ithaca, the SFP and our understanding of the neighborhood, the class summarized
the desired neighborhood characteristics, including land uses, housing and building types, and
residential density, identified zoning changes that are necessary to achieve or maintain these
characteristics, and conducted an infill analysis on underutilized parcels using the Envision
Tomorrow platform to determine whether some areas of the Greater Southside are appropriate
for growth and redevelopment.
Neighborhood Boundaries and Community Outreach Recommendations Student teams conducted interviews throughout the course of the semester with local residents,
community leaders and other stakeholders to determine appropriate neighborhood boundaries
and community outreach mechanisms. In addition to the interviews, we reviewed the planning
area as defined by the SFP, consulted Plan Ithaca, and conducted multiple site visits to
recommend a planning area for the 2016 plan. We specifically note modifications to the SFP area
and provided rationale for these changes. In addition to interviews, we researched creative
outreach strategies to create a holistic and individualized strategy that includes community
participation at various points of the planning process, utilizes both traditional and
technologically based tools, and identified known obstacles to or other considerations for
conducting public outreach.
The Southside Flowering Plan: Connections and Contradictions with Plan Ithaca
Relationship of Southside Flowering Plan to Plan Ithaca The process to create “Southside Flowering: A Neighborhood Action Plan” began in July of 2001,
following the approval of economic development plans for the City in 1999 and a subsequent
neighborhood planning resolution enacted in 2001. The multi‐tiered participatory process
included Southside residents, business owners, church and civic leaders, and liaisons from other
local organizations, and was led by a team of City officials, and a team of students and faculty
from Cornell University. The planning process resulted in nine goals with complementary
objectives, which address the specific needs of neighborhood stakeholders, and are outlined as
the following
1. Mitigate traffic and parking changes
2. Improve and beautify neighborhood housing
3. Neighborhood Preservation and Anti‐Gentrification
4. Improve Parks and Open Space
5. Support public safety and improve outreach to senior citizens and the mental
health community
6. Connect neighborhood residents and strengthen social connectedness
7. Support the Southside Community Center (SSCC) and youth development
8. Improve commercial and neighborhood relations
9. Sustainability
Plan Ithaca delineates three main thread‐through themes: Sustainability, Equity, and
Collaboration. The themes help guide the following visions and goals within seven specific areas
of focus:
1. Public Participation and Communication
2. Land Use
3. Economic Vitality
4. Community Livability
5. Mobility and Transportation
6. Natural and Cultural Resources
7. Sustainable Energy, Water, and Food Systems
9
The goal of the analysis was to identify places where the objectives of the SFP overlap with Plan
Ithaca’s thread‐through themes. First is a summary of key places where the themes can be
strengthened and applied.
Sustainability Sustainability is listed as one of the key development objectives in the SFP, yet the plan does not
define the term specifically. An example of overlap with Plan Ithaca is the SFP’s reference to a
Community Garden Initiative, and concern about access to fresh produce and sustainable
agriculture. The SFP also makes reference to protecting and enhancing Six Mile Creek.
Equity Equity as is defined by Plan Ithaca is an underlying concern within the SFP, and specific
neighborhood needs are indicated within sections such as “Neighborhood preservation and anti‐
gentrification.” Furthermore, there is explicit desire to improve outreach to both senior citizens
and neighborhood youth, and promote commercial activity for minority businesses. Public safety
is also a primary issue throughout the SFP, and an increased sensitivity to police and young men
of color is specifically addressed within a “Neighborhood Safety Initiative.” Participatory
processes were also strong, which helped to ensure inclusion.
Collaboration Collaborative efforts to create the SFP were strong, and involved efforts from the City, Cornell
University, and key stakeholders and community organizations throughout the Southside area. A
key community organization identified in the SFP is the Southside Community Center. The goal
in the early 2000s was the help revitalize this organization to help meet the broad range of needs
and interests in the Greater Southside Community. Further identification of key stakeholders and
organizations for this current round of planning will be instrumental in the success of the planning
process.
Ideas and Sections that Coincide or Conflict with Plan Ithaca This section uses the seven topics outlined in Plan Ithaca as a framework. Public Participation is
a key theme in both Plan Ithaca and the SFP. The SFP clearly establishes who was involved in the
process, and methods that were used to gather information and input from the community. The
Land Use section in the SFP is short and does not indicate much in the way of future land use,
but does highlight some specific land uses throughout the neighborhood, as well as identifying
areas that could be considered for mixed‐use redevelopment, such as along Route 13. Clear ideas
about overall Economic Vitality in the SFP are weak, though community members did express a
concern about promoting appropriate commercial businesses in their area. When the plan was
drafted, there was also a tension between the neighborhood and the new commercial activity
immediately west of the neighborhood. Further investigation into this tension is worth looking
into moving forward with the planning process. The themes from the Community Livability
section in Plan Ithaca are clearly reflected in the SFP, such as neighborhood character and
affordability. Creating a welcome environment in the neighborhood through a community
welcome flyer, and a website for residents are also listed as objectives. Mobility and
Transportation concerns are apparent throughout the SFP, with specific regard for parking and
pedestrian safety. Ensuring enough on‐street parking for residents is also highlighted as a
concern. Natural and Cultural Resources are important to the residents in the Greater Southside,
expressed by a desire to connect the Greater Southside’s urban environment with the
neighborhood’s natural resources such as Six Mile Creek, and with cultural resources such as the
Southside Community Center. Sustainable Energy, Water, and Food Systems are highlighted as
concerns, but this area could be strengthened in the next round of the planning process.
Assessment of the Completeness of the Southside Flowering Plan Using four different evaluation methods,1 the class analyzed the SFP. The plan was found to share
many goals and objectives with the newly‐adopted Plan Ithaca, but key topics and ideas are still
missing or can be strengthened.
Strengths of the Southside Flowering Plan Across four different evaluation methods, our analysis found that the greatest strength of the
SFP was its emphasis on community engagement, public participation, and outreach. The most
detailed portion of the draft plan is the description of the multi‐tiered process. From the
beginning of the document, the plan emphasizes its “adherence to resident empowerment and
the adherence to a resident driven process,” (Chatterton, et. al, 2006). The plan essentially acts
as a snapshot of community sentiment during a specific time period.
1 We used the following methods: Urban Land Use Planning Plan Evaluation Protocol (Berke,
Godschalk, Kaiser and Rodriguez), Sustaining Places for Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans
(Godschalk and Rouse), The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality Matrix (Bunnell and
Jepson) and the LEED‐ND+ Checklist.
11
Weaknesses of the Southside Flowering Plan The four evaluation methods revealed that a major weakness within the SFP was its lack of a
relevant fact‐base. The SFP does not include much more context beyond community input in
terms of statistics, data, maps, or other visualizations. Additionally, the plan does not refer to or
clarify an implementation strategy, which could have been a contributing factor to this plan’s
never having been adopted.
Key Takeaways to Inform the Planning Process In the next stages, the plan for the Southside neighborhoods would benefit from providing more
context in the form of maps, statistics, data, and other visualizations to back up a rich public
engagement strategy. Additionally, clear steps should be outlined for how goals and objectives
are to be implemented so that the energy from the public engagement sessions is not lost. Plan
Ithaca can provide language, style, and a framework for Southside to fill in neighborhood‐specific
details. The public engagement strategy undertaken by the City should not be lost in the fact‐
based work that is needed to make the neighborhood plan more robust.
Existing Conditions: A Demographic Snapshot of the Southside Communities
Population Change Since 2000, the Greater Southside has experienced significant population change. Between 2000
and 2014, the Historic Southside and Henry St. John witnessed the largest population growth in
the Greater Southside area. The block group that includes the majority of these two
neighborhoods experienced an over 50% increase in population (Figure 1).
There was also significant population growth in the Spencer Road neighborhood during this time
period, with its respective block group experiencing a population increase of 28.2%. The South
of the Creek neighborhood experienced population decline with an 8% loss in population.
However, it should be noted that the block group in which Spencer Road and South of the Creek
reside extends much farther past the neighborhood boundaries towards the Southwest.
Therefore, the figures addressed at the block group level are not necessarily indicative of trends
in the neighborhoods alone, but the larger geographic area that makes up the block groups in
which they are located.
Generally, the Southside communities have experienced a similar growth pattern to the City of
Ithaca. However, because of the mismatch of the census block groups with the neighborhood
boundaries, further analysis should be done to indicate whether the population decline
experienced by South of the Creek is truly reflective of that neighborhood, or if it is a larger trend
occurring in the block group as a whole.
13
Figure 1:
Age Distribution Henry Saint John, Historic Southside, and the Spencer Road neighborhoods all have similar
percentages of their populations over the age of 60; between 13% and 16% (Figure 2). However,
for the South of the Creek neighborhood this figure is much higher, with over a quarter of their
residents who are over age 60.
The percent of younger residents in the block groups that incorporate the Southside communities
ranges widely, from 4.3% to over 30% (Figure 3). The block group that incorporates the majority
of Henry Saint John and Historic Southside has a very large youth population, with 30.7% of its
population being under 18.
This age distribution shows that there is a significant amount of both young and old residents
within the Southside communities, indicating that there is a variety of age groups present within
the Southside communities. The age distribution also indicates the population in the South of the
Creek neighborhood is older overall, and there are more young residents in Henry Saint John and
Historic Southside neighborhoods.
15
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
17
Racial Composition The percentage of residents who identify as African American or black (including all ethnicities)
ranges widely across the four communities from 2.9% to 16.2% (Figure 4). The Henry Saint John
and Southside Communities have a much higher proportion of black residents than all of the City
of Ithaca’s block groups’ average (6.2%). Spencer Road has a much lower percentage of black
residents compared to the citywide average, with only 2.9% of their residents identifying as black.
The Southside communities have a similar percentage of their residents who identify as white
(including all ethnicities) with the exception of Spencer Road, which has a slightly higher
percentage of white residents (85.3%) (Figure 5).
The rest of the Southside communities have a similar percentage of white residents compared to
the average of all of the block groups that make up the City of Ithaca, with the neighborhoods
excluding Spencer Road ranging from 70% to just over 75%, and the average for the City of Ithaca
block groups being 73.1%. There is a high concentration of Hispanic residents in the Henry Saint
John and Historic Southside communities, with almost 25% of the population identifying as such
(Figure 6). This is the highest percentage of Hispanic residents among all of the block groups
within the city of Ithaca.
Few people identified as some other race, two or more races, and a small percentage of residents
identified as Asian (about 10%) (Figures 7, 8, 9).
Figure 4:
19
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
21
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
23
Figure 9:
Income and Poverty The poverty levels of the Southside communities range widely from 10.4% to 39.1%. The Historic
Southside and Henry Saint John communities have the highest proportion of poverty (39.1%),
whereas Spencer Road has the lowest level of poverty (10.4%) (Figure 10). Comparing these
figures, to the average of all of the Ithaca block groups (9.6%), one can see that all of the
Southside communities have more poverty than the city as a whole.
In 2014, the average household median incomes of the Greater Southside neighborhoods ranged
from $19,584 to $56,250. Historic Southside and Henry Saint John have lower median incomes
than other areas in Ithaca, while Spencer Road area has a higher median income (Figure 11).
Between 2009 and 2014, the Greater Southside area has experienced an apparent decrease of
average household median income, and Spencer Road area has witnessed a drop of more than
39.3% (Figure 12).
The unemployment rate is lowest in the Spencer Road neighborhood (between 3.98%‐6.62%),
whereas the other neighborhoods have a higher rate of unemployment (between 6.63% and
9.7%) (Figure 13).
25
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
27
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
29
Housing
Increase in Renters There has been significant population growth in the Greater Southside since 2010, and much of
this has been through the renter population. Ownership rates have decreased in the Greater
Southside. Concern over this change in homeownership was prevalent in the interviews with
residents and stakeholders, as renters are considered mostly transient and may have less
commitment to the neighborhood.
Historic Southside and Henry Saint John have experienced a decrease in homeownership more
substantially than in other Greater Southside neighborhoods (Figure 14). Between 2010 and 2014
the number of occupied units decreased across all neighborhoods. There has been substantial
increase of renters in Historic Southside and Henry Saint John. Between 2000 and 2009, a total
of 344 people moved in these two districts, while among them 66% were renters, which is higher
than the Tompkins County average of 42% (Figure 14).
The Greater Southside has witnessed increased portions of renters that are newly moved‐in
between 2010 and 2014. These portions of 94.19% for Henry Saint John and Historic Southside,
83.24% for South of Creek, and 95.45% for Spencer Road are substantially higher than the
Tompkins County average of 76.25% (Figure 15).
Housing Affordability Another concern expressed by interviewees in the Greater Southside is housing affordability.
There have been concerns over the trend of gentrification in the Greater Southside, which is
associated with the increase of renters and developments in the neighborhood in recent years.
The median home value for the Southside communities range from $153,300 to $270,000. The
block group that incorporates the northeast corner of Henry Saint John has the highest median
home value, and South of the Creek has the lowest home value. However, the Southside
communities as a whole has a much lower median home value than many of the block groups
that comprise the City of Ithaca (Figure 16).
Age of Building Stock There is variance in the average age of buildings between each neighborhood. Henry Saint John
and Southside have older buildings than Spencer Road or South of the Creek.
Neighborhood Average Year Buildings Built
Henry St. John 1908
Southside 1906
South of the Creek 1931
Spencer Road 1922
Figure 17 indicates the distribution of aged buildings, suggesting candidate parcel or buildings
that have potential for future designation of historic district or individual landmark. Also, there
have been several new buildings developed after 2000.
31
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
33
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
35
Transportation
Walkability/Access to Public Transit As the neighborhoods transition from being primarily owner‐occupied to being comprised of an
increasing number of renters, implementing sustainable transportation measures such as
improved bicycle infrastructure and increased bus routes will become even more crucial as the
data indicates that there are significantly fewer renters who own vehicles as compared to owners
(Figure 18). The team studied the existing means of transportation to work to further analyze the
need for more walkability and access to public transit. Walkability in the Greater Southside was
highlighted as an appealing factor in many of the conducted interviews.
In regards to the current methods of transportation used in the area, the Spencer Road area
(which includes other parts outside of our study area) has a higher rate of people who work from
home (13.2% compared to 2.9% for South of the Creek and 5.6% for Henry Saint John/Historic
Southside).
There is a higher rate of walking to and from work for Henry Saint John/Historic Southside (19.4%)
compared to that of 11.7% for South of the Creek and 14.3% for Spencer Road area. This is also
true for bicycle use (9.7% for Henry Saint John/Historic Southside, compared to 2.3% for South
of the Creek and 0.6% for Spencer Road). This could make sense if assuming people are walking
or biking downtown to work. There is a higher rate of public transit use of 27.9% in Henry Saint
John/Historic Southside, compared to 17.9% for South of the Creek and 6.7% for Spencer Road.
Accordingly, there is a much lower rate of commuting to and from work in a private vehicle in
Henry Saint John/Historic Southside (35.2%) compared to South of the Creek (65.2%) and Spencer
Road (64.9%).
Among those who do commute in private vehicles to and from work, there is a higher rate of
carpooling for Henry Saint John/Historic Southside (12.1%) compared to the other
neighborhoods (7.1% for South of the Creek and 5.6% for Spencer Road). However, considering
all areas in general, commuting to and work in private vehicles is the primary means of
transportation.
Traffic Calming As the map in Figure 19 indicates, there are more collisions along the perimeter of the Greater
Southside boundaries, on streets like Green Street, Spencer Road and Route 13 (South Meadow).
Route 13 in particular has had a high number of collision which contributes to the already sharp
division between the commercial district and residential neighborhood of Titus Flats/ South of
Creek. Another concern about transportation is the high traffic flow in the Spencer Road
neighborhood. This is due to that people are using Spencer Road as a connecting road from
downtown to the suburban areas. Thus there are strong calls from the interviews for better traffic
calming strategies and sidewalks especially in the Spencer Road neighborhood. Below (Figure 19)
is the analysis for traffic collisions in the Greater Southside.
Figure 18:
37
Figure 19:
Implications for the Public Outreach Strategy Through analyzing the maps presented above, several conclusions can be made about the
Southside communities, including the following:
‐ Southside neighborhoods have a higher proportion of African American and Hispanic
residents than the City of Ithaca as a whole. The public participation process must strive
to fully engage African American and Hispanic residents in the planning process.
‐ Southside neighborhoods include a higher proportion of low income residents, many of
whom are likely to be tenants. The planning process must also strive to include these
residents in the planning process.
‐ The Southside neighborhoods have high levels of both young and old residents, indicating
a need for including a wide range of ages in the public outreach strategy. This may mean
that a wide variety of techniques may have to be used to appeal to the varying age groups.
Infill and Zoning
Plan Ithaca, Current Zoning, and Current Land Use Plan Ithaca includes a Future Land Use Map (Figure 20), which serves as a guide for future zoning
and other land use regulations.
Within the Greater Southside communities, the Future Land Use Map generally matches both
current zoning and current land uses. In the central areas of the Greater Southside communities
and along most of Spencer Road, the Future Land Use Map calls for Medium Density Residential,
which Plan Ithaca considers to have a residential focus, with 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre. This
matches the current form of these areas, which are generally filled with single‐family homes and
small apartment buildings within that density. Likewise, the Future Land Use Map calls for Urban
Mixed Use along the corridors to the north (between W. Green Street and W. Seneca Street),
east (along S. Cayuga Street.), west (along S. Meadow Street.), and south (along Old Elmira Road).
These areas currently have a generally commercial character, which is a main feature of the
planned Urban Mixed Use area, but have a smaller share of high‐density residential, the other
main feature of the planned Urban Mixed Use area.
The Future Land Use Map also generally matches the current zoning of the Greater Southside
Communities. As depicted in the simplified City of Ithaca zoning map below (Figure 21), the
central areas of the Greater Southside Communities, as well as most of Spencer Road, have
residential zoning. Commercial zoning districts surround the residential core of the
neighborhoods, and these commercial zoning districts generally permit medium‐to‐high
residential density in addition to commercial uses.
39
Although Plan Ithaca’s Future Land Use Map matches the existing land use and zoning within the
Greater Southside Communities, there are two locations where the Future Land Use Map does
not appear to align with current zoning and land use (Figure 22).
Along the southern side of Spencer Road, the Future Land Use Map calls for an Environmentally‐
Sensitive area. According to Plan Ithaca, in these areas, “[n]ew development may be permitted
in some locations but will require a higher level of review.” This area includes several single‐
family homes and is zoned for moderate‐density residential use, so this may be a location to
review how the Future Land Use Map and zoning could be better aligned.
Similarly, there is an area along the southern side of W. Clinton Street near S. Meadow Street
where the Future Land Use Map appears to be aligned with the current land use but not with the
current zoning. The area currently contains several commercial buildings, including a CVS
Pharmacy, as is within a commercial zone. However, the Future Land Use Map calls for Medium
Density Residential in this location, except for the area closest to S. Meadow Street. This may be
another location to review how the Future Land Use Map and zoning can be better aligned.
Vacancy Vacant properties may be most likely to be developed, and therefore vacancy information is key
for an infill analysis. Figure 23 below depicts vacant properties (parcels with no assessed
improvements) in the Greater Southside Communities. The study area, especially South of the
Creek, Historic Southside, and Henry Saint John, contains few vacant properties. In total, there
are only 17 vacant properties within the entire study area. There are more vacant properties
along Spencer Road, but the largest of these is considered Environmentally‐Sensitive according
to Plan Ithaca’s Future Land Use Map.
In addition to properties which are fully vacant, many properties in the study area contain large
surface parking lots which may be available for redevelopment. These surface parking lots are
found in the commercial areas on each edge of the study area, with a particular concentration
along Old Elmira Road to the south of the study area.
Figure 20:
41
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
43
Figure 23: Areas where Comprehensive Plan Designations and Current Zoning Districts Do Not
Match
Figure 24:
45
Figure 25: City of Ithaca Zoning Districts2
District Regulations Chart
Use District Sub‐
District Permitted Primary Uses
R‐1
Single Family Residential
R1a
1. One‐family detached dwlg. 2. Church and related buildings. 3. Public park or playground. 4. Library, fire station. BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS: 5. Cemetery and related buildings. 6. Public utility structure except office. 7. All school and related buildings.
R1b
R‐2
Two Family Residential
R2a 1. One‐family detached or semi‐detached dwlg. 2. Two‐family dwlg. 3. Uses 2‐4 under R‐1. BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS: 4. Uses 5‐7 under R‐1. 5. Nursery school, child day care center, group adult day care facility. 6. Neighborhood commercial facility (see §325‐3). 7. Bed and Breakfast Homes 8. R‐2c only: One‐family detached dwlg.; zero‐lot line. 9. R‐2c only: One‐family attached dwlg.
R2b
R2c
R‐3
Multi Family Residential
R3a
1. One‐family detached, semi‐detached or attached dwlg. or two‐family dwlg.2. Any use permitted in R‐1 and R‐2. 3. Multiple dwlg. (See § 325‐3). 4. Rooming or boarding house. 5. Cooperative household (See § 325‐3). 6. Fraternity, sorority or group house. 7. Dormitory.(Not an allowable use in R‐3aa) 8. Townhouse or garden apartment housing. 9. Nursery school, child day care center, group Adult Day Care. 10. Nursing, convalescent or rest home. BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS: 11. Any uses permitted by special permit in R‐1 and R‐2. 12. Neighborhood commercial facility. 13. Hospital or Sanatorium. 14. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns
R3aa
R3b
R‐U
1. One‐family detached, semi‐detached or attached dwlg. or 2‐family dwlg.2. Any use permitted in R‐1 and R‐2. 3. Multiple dwlg. 4. Rooming or boardinghouse. 5. Cooperative household. 6. Fraternity, sorority or group house. 7. Dormitory.
2 This table is an excerpt from Section 325‐8: District Regulations Chart:
8. Townhouse or garden apartment housing.BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BOARD OF APPEALS: 9. Uses 5‐7 under R‐1. 10. Nursery school, child day care center. 11. Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns
B‐1
Business
B1a
1. Any use permitted in R‐3. 2. Funeral home or mortuary. 3. Business or professional office. 4. Bank or monetary institution. 5. Office of government. 6. Public, private or parochial school. B‐1b: See § 325‐41, Design Review
B1b
B‐2
Business
B2a
B‐2a: 1. Any use permitted in B‐1. 2. Retail store or service commercial facility. 3. Restaurant, fast food establishment, tavern. 4. Club, lodge or private social center. 5. Confectionery, millinery, dressmaking and other activities involving light hand fabrication as well as sales. 6. Theater, bowling alley, auditorium or other similar place of public assembly. 7. Hotel, motel. B‐2b and B‐2c: 1. Any use permitted in B‐2a 2. Parking Garages B‐2d: 1. Any use permitted in B‐1. 2. Retail store or service commercial facility. 3. Confectionery, millinery, dressmaking and other activities involving light hand fabrication as well as sales. B‐2a,b,c,d: BY SPECIAL PERMIT OF BD. OF APPEALS: 1. Redemption centers. See § 325‐41, Design Review
B2b
B2c
B2d
B‐4
Business
1. Any use permitted in B‐2.2. Gasoline station. 3. Parking Garages. 4. Motor vehicle sales and service. 5. Printing, heating, welding, air conditioning, plumbing or similar shop.
B‐5
Business 1. Any use permitted in B‐4.
CBD
Central Business District
CBD‐50
1. Any use permitted in B‐2. See §325‐41, Design Review
CBD‐60
CBD‐85
CBD‐100
CBD‐120
CBD‐140
C‐SU
Court House Special Use
1. Any use permitted in R‐3.2. Professional offices of architect, engineer, lawyer, realtor, accountant, planning, management, design and finance consultants; & similar occupations based on provision of written, verbal or graphic materials to clients.(see § 325‐42, 325‐43, 325‐44)
47
3. Medical or dental office.(see § 325‐42, 325‐43, 325‐44), See §325‐41, Design Review
I‐1
Industrial
1. Any use permitted in B‐5, except that dwlg. units are prohibited. 2. Industrial, warehousing, wholesaling, storage and handling of bulk goods (not including rubbish as defined in § 196.1), lumberyards, and agriculture except that no animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any property line. 3. Any use not permitted in any other zoning district, subject to the issuance of a special permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with § 325‐9 and concurrence by the Common Council. 4. All uses must conform to special performance standards governing establishment of industrial uses (see § 325‐24). 5. Transfer station for recyclable materials. ). Properties located within the I‐1 District may also apply for a Planned Unit Development. See Also § 325‐12. for additional information on Planned Unit Development).
P‐1
Park
1. Public recreation.2. Public and semi‐public institution whose purpose is education except that, within 200 feet of a residential district, any use other than classrooms or living accommodations which conform to the regulations of the adjacent residential district is permitted only by special permit of the Board of Appeals (see § 325‐9). 3. All municipal public buildings, facilities and functions.
U‐1
University
1. Post secondary educational institution and its affiliated institutions, whose primary purpose is education, research, extension or living accommodation.
MH‐1
Mobile Homes
1. Mobile Home Parks 2. Mobile Home displays and sales, except that no display shall take place within the confines of mobile home parks.
WEDZ
West End Zone
WEDZ‐1a
WEDZ‐1a 1. Any use permitted in B‐4. 2. Parking Lot 3. Recreational or cultural facility such as a park, playground, art museum, fishing pier or yacht club. 4. Public Recreation 5. Boatel 6. Sale, rental, repairs or storage of marine related recreation equipment such as boats, marine engines, sails cabin equipment. 7. Light manufacture of marine recreation related products involving substantial hand fabrication such as sails, boat hulls, cabin fittings. WEDZ‐1b 1. Any Primary Use permitted in B‐2a.
WEDZ‐1b
SW
Southwest
SW‐1 SW‐1: 1. Any use permitted in B‐5 except offices as a primary use, (with the exception of medical and dental, or unless the office is a minimum of 25,000 square feet
SW‐2
with a single tenant), motor vehicle sales and service, gasoline stations as a primary use, and redemption centers. 2. Light industrial and manufacturing; wholesaling, warehousing, storage and handling of bulk goods, lumberyards, printing, heating, plumbing, welding, and air conditioning. 3. Recreational or cultural facility such as park, playground, and museums. SW‐2: 1. Any use permitted in B‐5. 2. Light industrial and manufacturing; wholesaling, warehousing, storage and handling of bulk goods, lumberyards, printing, heating, plumbing, welding, and air conditioning. 3. Recreational or cultural facility such as park, playground, and museums.
SW‐3
WF
Waterfront
WF‐1
1. Any use permitted in B‐2 except establishments where food or drink is intended to be served to or consumed by persons in automobiles. 2. Recreational or cultural facility such as park, playground, art museum, fishing pier or yacht club. 3. Public recreation 4. Boatel 5. Sale, rental, repair or storage of marine‐related recreation equipment such as boats, marine engines, sails, cabin equipment. 6. Light manufacture of marine recreation‐related products involving substantial hand fabrication such as sails, boat hulls, cabin fittings. By Special Permit of the Board of Appeals 7. Parking Lot 8. Parking Garage
WF‐2
CR
Collegetown Residential
CR‐1
For a complete list of primary and accessory uses permitted in the Collegetown Residential districts see Section 325‐45.3.
CR‐2
CR‐3
CR‐4
MU
Mixed Use
MU‐1 For a complete list of primary and accessory uses permitted in the Mixed Use districts see Section 325‐45.3. MU‐2
GP
Gorge Protection
See Zoning District § 325‐4. See § 325‐16(D).
Historic District
See Landmarks Preservation Chapter 228.
Adult Uses See Zoning District § 325‐4. See § 325‐29.
49
Infill Feasibility Analysis: Case Studies As part of our infill and zoning analysis, we each conducted feasibility studies on selected parcels
using the Envision Tomorrow Return on Investment Tool.3 This tool allows users to analyze how
their community's current growth pattern and future decisions impacting growth will impact a
range of measures from public health, fiscal resiliency and environmental sustainability. Also, this
tool, even though it is quite robust with its inputs, does not replace a full‐blown project pro forma
analysis, and some results must be taken with a grain of salt.
Three different building typologies are shown in the case studies below: a residential
development, a brownfield redevelopment, and a mixed‐use redevelopment. The
Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the development of compact, mixed‐use development, as well
as the creation of more affordable housing in the area. Increased mixed use development could
promote an increased tax basis, add jobs, and increase services to the area.
3 This tool can be found here: http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/enhanced‐roi/
CASE STUDY 1: 508 W GREEN STREET‐‐ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
508 W. Green Street is an
underutilized parcel located in the
Southside neighborhood. The site
is zoned B2‐D. In concordance with
suggestions and desires in both
Plan Ithaca and in the Southside
Flowering Plan, the following
scenario explores development of
the site as a new multi‐family
residential development. The uses
surrounding the parcel are also
residential.
The scenario involves constructing
a 13,000+ square foot building, made up of 14 units (at 875 SF each). Construction costs for the
project (calculated using RS Means software) are over $2.8 million. In order to achieve a 12%
target IRR, the developer would have to charge a rental rate of $2310.75 monthly. This rate is
likely out of scope with the surrounding neighborhood demographics. The median income in the
City of Ithaca is approximately $30,318. Prospective tenants at 100% Area Median Income can
afford a rent of $757.00 per month (or $1514.00 if two people contribute). In conclusion,
substantial subsidies would likely be needed to complete this project to meet the target IRR.
However, subsidies to develop this project as an affordable housing project may be available.
This project, provided the right income thresholds were being targeted, could potentially qualify
for the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit program. Additionally, Community Development Block
Grants may be available, or financial assistance from the Low Income Housing Trust Fund may be
available as well. Partnering with community organizations such as Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services may be necessary to construct this type of building.
51
The results of the ROI exercise for Case Study 1 are outlined below:
CASE STUDY 2: 607 W STATE STREET ‐‐ BROWNFIELD SITE
Parcel 79.‐6‐8.2 at 609 West Clinton
Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 could be
considered for redevelopment to
address the housing demand in the
City and to offer vitality to the
Historic Southside neighborhood.
The parcel is appropriate for
redevelopment because of the size
of the lot, the desire of the
residents for redevelopment in that
area, and the need for housing in
Ithaca generally. However, there
are challenges to this site and compromises and adjustments have to be made if the site were
actually to be redeveloped.
The building prototype and potential location are based upon the 2003 Southside Flowering Plan
in which residents indicated the desire for infill of high‐density residences where the CVS
Drugstore is currently located (p. 35, Objective 2). In the Flowering Plan the residents were
interested in rezoning the CVS parcel from a B‐2a to an R‐3 zone in order to develop the new
housing. However, since this process is reliant on CVS closing or relocating, which does not seem
likely in the foreseeable future, this does not seem feasible at this time. The neighboring parcel,
79.‐6‐8.2 at 609 West Clinton Street, is zoned as both B‐2a and R‐2b, and is an appropriate
alternative. This parcel is the current site of a non‐descript mid‐century building with retail (a
salon, a hearing aid store, a tanning salon) and office space for The Child Development Council.
There may be other organizations or businesses in large building, but due to the lack of
transparency and street frontage, it is difficult to have an accurate sense of all of the businesses
without further investigation. This building appears to be in need of renovations. Further, this is
a relatively large parcel (2.65 acres), which makes it more appealing for development, and it is
located at an intersection between Route 13 and the Southside neighborhood that has potential
to be a centralized community node.
The community has indicated the desire for more local retail, particularly minority‐owned
businesses (see Southside Flowering Plan), so displacing the current retail and office tenants is
problematic. It is also the case that only with the inclusion of retail and office space is this project
financially feasible. With these factors in mind, developing a mixed‐used building with retail and
office space on the ground floor, and two stories of residential is proposed. The Envision
Appendix A: Sample Lesson Plan for School Outreach UNIT TITLE Co‐creation: How can kids help build community?
SUBJECT(S) Social Studies, English, some Math
GRADE LEVEL Elementary with alternatives for Middle and High School
ESTIMATED TIME 2‐3 Hours
OVERVIEW:
Students write narratives and bring in artifacts to represent their community.
City Planner gives an introduction on the planning process and the neighborhood plan.
Students complete a survey to determine neighborhood’s strengths and weaknesses
Students complete a gallery walk of pictures and choose 10 that they like most.
Teacher and Planner facilitate class discussion on possibilities for the neighborhood
Students work in teams to create a presentation on what they would change in their neighborhood.
STANDARDS:
Social Studies: (Taken from Grade 3 Social Studies Core Understandings) o People in world communities exchange elements of their cultures. o People in world communities celebrate their accomplishments, achievements,
and contributions. Historic events can be viewed through the eyes of those who were there, as shown in their art, writings, music, and artifacts
o People living in world communities depend on and modify their physical environments in different ways. .
Language Arts: (Taken from Grade 3 Common Core) o Use information gained from illustrations (e.g., maps, photographs) and the words
in a text to demonstrate understanding of the text (e.g., where, when, why, and how key events occur).
o Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons o Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. o Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one‐on‐one, in groups,
and teacher‐led) with diverse partners on grade 3 topics and texts, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly.
LEARNING GOALS:
1. Students will be able to write an informative essay using details about current events in the world, nation, state, and local community to describe their neighborhood
2. Students will be able to utilize print and electronic mediums to persuade an audience to their opinion.
3. Students will understand how their geography influences their lifestyle and community.
ESSENTIAL/GUIDING QUESTION(S):
1. What is your role in the world and how might that be different than someone else’s? 2. What influences how you live your life?
I. Student are asked before the City planner comes to class to write about the neighborhood they live in and are encouraged to bring in pictures about what they love or don’t love. Students should be ready to explain why they chose a picture if they bring one in. ‐ What does your neighborhood look it? ‐ What do you love about where you live? ‐ What do you wish was different?
II. Send home a letter with all students that are participating explaining what the city is doing and that all student work used in the planning process will be anonymous.
Lesson:
I. City planner describes to whole class (should not last longer than 5‐10 minutes): If coordinated, this could be included in a worksheet activity addressing the key vocabulary terms. a. What is city planning? b. Plan Ithaca c. Phase II Planning Process and Goal
II. Students complete the same survey given to adults at that first House Meeting/Neighborhood Summit (3‐5 Minutes) a. Explain:
What are surveys? Anonymous nature of surveys Goal of surveys
III. Tell students that there are many things that can happen in every neighborhood in the country and that city planners try to make rules that regulate those things. The pictures included in the gallery walk are all possibilities or existing conditions in Ithaca. Students need to choose only *specified number* of pictures that they really like. Instruct students to put a sticker on the pictures they like.
77
a. Gallery Walk: Have students line up and walk around all of the pictures to look at everything first. Prep them with, “Make sure you remember the ones you really like!”
After the initial pass, pass out stickers for them to use as their markers for the pictures that they like. Set a timer for 3 minutes and allow students to wonder around SILENTLY to put their stickers on the picture they like. Give them a 30‐second warning before timer runs off, but tell them that they do not need to hurry, but that they should not be talking. Time for this may vary depending on group.
b. After students have walked around engage in a discussion about which ones they really liked and which ones they didn’t.
Which pictures had the most stickers? Which ones had the least? What were your favorites? Why? Tell students that these could be possibilities in their community and ask them to think about which ones they would use if they could change one thing in their neighborhood.
IV. (1‐2 hours) Divide students into teams to create a presentation on what they would change in their neighborhood. There should be no more than 3 or four students per group. Each group should address the following questions:
City planner can either stay for this or come back for the presentation on another day.
b. What would they change? c. Why do they want to change it? d. How would they change it?
V. At the close of the lesson, tell kids about the outreach plans with the city and that they are welcome at all events and to tell their parents about them.
Appendix B: Additional Maps
∙ Existing Land Use
∙ Lot Size
∙ Property Types
∙ Accessory Dwelling Unit Permits: 2000‐2016
∙ Building Addition Permits: 2000‐2016
∙ Year Built: Non‐Residential Properties
∙ Parks, Natural Areas, Trails, and Public Art
∙ Local Businesses
∙ Percent of Residents That Live and Work in Tompkins County
∙ Brownfield Sites
∙ Flood Zones
∙ Watersheds
∙ Elevation
∙ Soil Survey
∙ Historic Districts and Properties
∙ Bus Routes and Traffic Count Stations
∙ Table: Stakeholder Lists of Neighborhood’s Businesses
