I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but this building height problem in my old neighbnorhood is really frustrating me. The character of the area changed years ago. Let them build up and increase the city tax base.
Cars travel through the intersection of College and Dryden avenues, the heart of Collegetown, where proposed changes to zoning and a design plan for new development will have the greatest impact. (Photo by Rachel Philipson)
The Ithaca Times online
Collegetown Crunch Time
Rob Montana
Managing Editor
April 12.
That's when the moratorium on development in Collegetown will expire, and when new design requirements and an accompanying new code will need to be in place to guide those looking to build there.
That is also just a little more than two months away, leaving the City of Ithaca working hard to get the regulations approved. The final approval is expected to be up for a vote at the Common Council's April 1 meeting.
"The moratorium is up April 12," said Leslie Chatterton, the city's historic preservation and neighborhood planner. "That is firm. No matter what is in place, that will end."
Whether or not the pieces will be in place is not yet determined, but Chatterton doesn't think there will be any issue with getting the final approval done by then. The plan is currently going through the adoption process, with updates and presentations given during the last four or five Planning and Economic Development Committee meetings.
"There have been presentations on each of the chapters (in the plan)," Chatterton said.
One hurdle will likely be cleared soon: The city Planning and Development Board was expected to make its recommendation to the Common Council at its special meeting Tuesday, Feb. 3.
"That ought to move things along as well," Chatterton said.
In conjunction with the Collegetown design plan, she said an accompanying code is being developed to address the Collegetown design proposals.
"It's a form-based code," Chatterton said, "which I distinguish from traditional code in that it emphasizes form over use.
In the case of Collegetown, she said, the use of the building is less important than how the building functions at its location.
"The Collegetown code will be sort of a hybrid between form-based and traditional, because there will be some use provisions mixed in, and the code will be just for the Collegetown area."
More moratorium?
It's not likely there will be an extension of the moratorium, which was originally set for a year and then extended by another six months this fall.
Alderperson Mary Tomlan, D-3rd, - who serves as chairperson of the Planning and Economic Development Committee - said the zoning surrounding the Collegetown design is complex (and what puts it into effect) and while her committee has heard a number of presentations regarding the design plan, it hasn't conducted much discussion about the zoning.
"At the last meeting, the committee had about an hour-long discussion of the plan itself, and the last 15 minutes were devoted to introductory comments about zoning," she said. "We really have a long ways to go in terms of discussing zoning.
"It is possible that would not be in place when the moratorium goes off," Tomlan added.
While she sees a benefit of extending the moratorium, even just a little bit longer, Tomlan doesn't think that will happen.
"It would make sense (to extend it) if it was important to have the moratorium in the first place, since the new zoning isn't in place, but I don't think anybody is willing to do that," she said, "but I don't think there is the political will.
"I'm not saying its playing politics in the sense of money and power," Tomlan added, "it's just clear there would be such an uproar that it would be difficult to extend it."
Tomlan said, however, some initial transition zoning could be put into place to address how development is done in the areas between the center of Collegetown and the nearby neighborhoods. She said that before the moratorium was in place, the Planning and Economic Development Committee was discussing zoning options for transition areas - just a small piece of the comprehensive proposals for Collegetown.
"At a minimum, we may be wanting to put that protection in place before the moratorium ends," Tomlan said. "It would be a more contained piece, but it would offer the protections we need.
"And then we would continue to work on the overall zoning, even if we didn't get it done in time for the April 1 Council meeting," she added.
That is expected to be up for discussion at the Planning and Economic Development Committee's next meeting, scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Feb. 18.
Tomlan said a pair of key points being proposed in the overall plan - reducing parking requirements and increasing the maximum heights - may not be in effect by the time the moratorium expires.
"If developers are counting on those two things, I don't think they'll be in place on April 12," she said. "In order to remove the parking requirement, there would need to be arrangements for remote lots.
"There would need to be some kind of relief valve for the parking that you would expect to come with new development," Tomlan added.
Parking and traffic concerns
The design plan is being worked up to generate more pedestrian traffic in Collegetown while reducing vehicular traffic. Chatterton said the plan aims to add incentives and enhancements in Collegetown to welcome walkers, though she cautioned the transformation wouldn't happen at once.
"It won't happen on April 12 that everybody is going to be walking around, it's going to happen over a period of time," Chatterton said. "That's what the goal is: To provide alternative transportation modes and options, such as remote parking."
The removal of parking requirements placed on developers has been one area of public concern about the proposed Collegetown regulations. Developers will be able to forgo putting in required parking by making a payment in lieu of parking fee, which would be based on what it would cost to put meet the parking requirements currently in place.
"The city would then work to provide enhancements that would allow parking elsewhere," Chatterton said.
But, the regulation wouldn't be dropped without infrastructure in place to make up for lost spaces.
"Most likely the parking requirements will stay as they are now until the city has time to put most of those other arrangements in place," Chatterton said. "I know there's a huge misconception about that, but there will be no change until the parking is provided for."
She also noted that the city's traffic engineers have thoroughly reviewed the chapter.
The latest information Tim Logue, of the city's Engineering Department, has seen - which was about two weeks ago - doesn't call for the removal of any parking requirements for developers.
"I have not seen the latest zoning proposal, but the latest one I saw said we weren't doing anything with parking," he said. "Presumably, we're going to keep the same, fairly steep parking requirements."
A complication with offering a payment in lieu of parking fee would be how to determine what the feel would be.
"There are a fair amount of logistical issues," Logue said. "Do you keep the same ratio? Do you make it looser or tighter?"
He also addressed a proposal to replace parking meters with "dynamic parking stations" that would allow the rates for parking at them to be changed based on day, time of day or any other factors the city could choose.
"That's one proposal that has come out of the plan, but that would not happen until there is a capital project," Logue said. "There will be a moderate expense to do that."
One misconception about the parking portion of the plan, Chatterton said, stems from a suggestion that if parking freed up in the surrounding neighborhoods - around the center of Collegetown - the city could possibly sell off those spaces to generate more income.
"There are spaces protected by residential parking permits and the suggestion was we could sell those extra spaces - if there was a surplus of parking - and turn that money back into neighborhood improvements," she said. "That is something the residents really oppose, because they can't see a time where the neighborhoods aren't overparked.
"I think the Common Council will make an effort to tweak the plan, so they can come up with something we can get started on and make adjustments accordingly," Chatterton added.
Tomlan thinks a detailed parking study needs to be done before changing parking space requirements for developers.
"I think it would be very useful, and the plan called for it, to have a parking study, but right now there isn't money budgeted for it," she said.
A study that checks the portions of residents that have cars, numbers of Collegetown businesses' employees that drive vehicles to work and who is parking on the streets or in lots would be beneficial, Tomlan said, when trying to determine what parking requirements to change and what would be needed to make up for those changes.
"We need a better profile before we start to change things drastically," she said. "From my perspective, I don't see that happening."
Collegetown canyon?
Another item that stirred a great deal of public outcry is the potential for a maximum height increase from 60-feet to 90-feet for buildings in the heart of Collegetown, which includes the intersection of College and Dryden avenues.
"That is still a big issue," Chatterton said. "A lot of people think it means more students, and will create density and traffic problems worse than are there right now."
While the 90-foot maximum height for the center of Collegetown is still part of the proposed changes, Chatterton said it only amounts to one more story on buildings.
"Right now, buildings are six stories tall (in the center of Collegetown)," she said. "The new code will allow for a very tall first story for enhanced retail space, which should attract more diverse retail operations.
"We have great merchants in Collegetown right now; this would just make it more diverse," Chatterton added.
She said that student housing only requires 10 feet from floor to floor, but that's not what the code is being designed for.
"We're looking for other development, like office space or a hotel, which requires greater floor-to-floor space," Chatterton added, saying that while the height maximum may be rising by approximately 30 feet, the number of people going into the space will not increase by that much. "That's one of the reasons we're going with a form-based code."
In addition, the code provides for a setback distance once the building reaches 60 feet in height, before additional height may be added.
"The building will not be a 90-foot-tall box," Chatterton said. "Once it reaches 60 feet, the building will have to step back 12 feet before it's height can continue.
She said that requirement would help break the potential for a canyon effect in the heart of Collegetown.
"That way you get more creativity in architecture," Chatterton said, "and there will be less floor space, which also decreases density."
Count Tomlan among those who are opposed to raising the maximum height. While others have talked about growing up in places such as Philadelphia or New York City, and not having a problem with tall buildings lining the streets, she thinks the increased heights could detract from the character of the area.
"I don't believe it would be attractive to see taller buildings, even with a 12-foot setback at the 60-foot level," Tomlan said. "You would still ultimately see the top of the building from a distance, and I still think there is build out possible with a lower height. I would like to see that developed before we would see any need for a 90-foot height."
Back when the Collegetown Vision Implementation groups were meeting, Tomlan said she proposed a compromise of allowing taller buildings if they could provide an amenity or other service that would be a benefit for a larger group of people.
"Say someone wanted to build a hotel that would attract a greater number of people. For a function like that, a developer might be given an additional height from the 60-foot maximum," she said. "I want to see a benefit for an increased height, and I want to identify the benefits ahead of time."
The other concern she has with raising the height in the center of Collegetown is aesthetics. By raising the maximum in the heart of the district, Tomlan said, you would need to increase the heights in the transition zones to make it look more attractive.
"In order to transition to the neighborhoods, both in lower East Hill and Bryant Park, you would have to increase it (the maximum allowed height of homes)," she said. "If you are still keeping those buildings at 35 feet, how do you mediate between 90 feet and 35 feet?
"As it is now, we're stepping down from 60 to 35 feet," Tomlan added.
The bottom line is that she thinks other arrangements can be made in terms of height maximums there - whether it be reviewing projects on a case-by-case basis or agreeing on a lower maximum.
"At the Planning Committee meeting two weeks ago, there was very limited support for the 90-foot height," Tomlan said. "There were persons there that said they felt they could go one way or the other, but would prefer 60 (feet) or looking at 72 feet.
"I don't think there is whole-hearted support for it," she added. "Downtown's zone is now 120 feet, but I don't think Collegetown needs to be higher. I don't think we need to have taller buildings."
More information, including updated documents, may be found on the City of Ithaca's Web site under the News section at www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/.