HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-15 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on NOVEMBER 24TH, 2015 in
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
AGENDA ITEM Start Time
1. Agenda Review 6:00
2. Privilege of the Floor (3‐minute maximum per person) 6:01
3. Site Plan Review
A. Project: Mixed‐Use Housing 6:15
Location: 210 Hancock St.
Applicant: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
Actions: Satisfaction of Conditions of Site Plan Approval
Project Description: This project received Site Plan Approval on August 25, 2015. The applicant proposes to
redevelop the entire 2.01‐acre parcel currently containing the vacant former grocery store, a smaller
commercial building, and a 110‐space parking lot. The applicant proposes to construct 12 two‐story townhomes
and a four‐story approximately 65,000‐SF mixed‐use building with approximately 53 apartments and three
ground‐floor commercial spaces, totaling approximately 10,000 SF. Approximately 64 parking spaces will be
provided ― approximately one third of which will be on the ground floor of the apartment building. The project
sponsor also proposes to convert 0.77 acres of contiguous City‐owned right‐of‐way (ROW) that include portions
of Adams St. and Lake Ave. (both of which are public streets); the former would become a playground area with
associated walks, and the latter would become a greenspace with a central non‐vehicular bike and pedestrian
path. The project is in the B‐2a Zoning District. The project requires the following approvals: Site Plan and
Subdivision Approval from the Planning and Development Board (Lead Agency); a Flood Plain Development
Permit; variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), approval from Board of Public Works (BPW) for
improvements to property in the public way; funding approval from Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and
Common Council approval. The project is in the B‐2a Zoning District and received the required variances on
8/11/15. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176‐4
(h)(2),(k), and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (9), for which the Lead Agency made
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 26, 2015. The Board of Public Works is currently
considering discontinuance of portions of Lake Ave. and Adams St.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
APPLICANT OVERHEAD PROJECTOR NOTE:
The City only has a VGA plug/cable
available to connect to our overhead
projector. If you need to connect another
way, you will need to provide your own
ADAPTOR. (Macs & many newer, lighter
laptops may not have a VGA port.)
If you have a disability & would like specific
accommodation to participate,
please contact the City Clerk at 274‐6570 by
12:00 p.m., the day before the meeting.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 2
B. Project: Four Multi‐Family Dwellings ― “Pocket Neighborhood” 6:45
Location: 215‐221 Spencer St.
Applicant: Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for PPM Homes
Actions: Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
Project Description: The applicant proposes to build a new multi‐family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside
site between W. Spencer St. and S. Cayuga St. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3
stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total). A 12‐car parking area is proposed with access off S. Cayuga
Street. Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces connecting through the
site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the R‐3b Zoning
District and received a variance for the parking area on November 3, 2015. This is an Unlisted Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for
which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issued a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance on October 27, 2015.
C. Project: Site Improvements 7:00
Location: 416‐18 E. State St.
Applicant: Scott Whitham
Actions: Determination of Environmental Significance Recommendation to BZA
Project Description: The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the existing commercial space into a bar,
expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations
include construction of two new building entrances, one of which will have a stair connecting the back entrance
to the adjacent parking area, realignment of the curbing to provide better maneuverability in the 2‐car parking
area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 32 off‐
street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing shared parking with the adjacent Argos Inn. The project is in
the B‐4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area
deficiencies and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC). This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”), §176‐4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11).
D. Project: Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation 7:20
Location: 327 Elmira Rd.
Applicant: Gregory L. Myer, Myer Funeral Services Corp.
Actions: Determination of Environmental Significance Recommendation to BZA
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this location. The L‐
shaped project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings. The proposed project is to renovate the
existing buildings, add a 46‐space parking area, a portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and
drop‐off area, install internal pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and add
landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the portion of the site contiguous
to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the SW‐2 District, while the larger portion of the site
containing the smaller building and proposed parking lot is in the R‐2a District. The rear portion of the site is
currently used for outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment. The project requires a Use Variance
for uses proposed in the R‐2a District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to
environmental review.
E. Simeon’s on the Commons Rebuild — Presentation & Design Review Meeting 7:40
F. The Chapter House Rebuild — Sketch Plan 8:00
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 3
G. Hughes Hall Renovations — Sketch Plan 8:20
H. DeWitt House (Old Library Site) — Sketch Plan 8:40
4. Zoning Appeals 9:00
#2991, Area Variance, 416‐418 E. State St.
#3000, Use Variance, 327 Elmira Rd., Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation
#3007, Area Variance, 314 Park Pl.
5. Old/New Business
A. December 2015 Planning Board Training — Update
B. Planning Board Report to Board of Public Works (BPW) — Proposal for Discontinuance of
Portions of Lake Ave.& Adams St.
9:05
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair (verbal)
9:15
B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal)
C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal)
7. Approval of Minutes: June 30, 2015 (Special Meeting), July 28, 2015, or August 25, 2015
(time permitting)
9:25
8. Adjournment 9:26
ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE
Site Plan Review & Subdivision Applications (and Related Documents)
Site Plan Review application documents are accessible electronically via the “Document Center” on the City web site
(www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter), under “Planning & Development” > “Site Plan Review Project Applications,” and in the relevant year/month
folder. Subdivision application materials can be similarly located, but in the “Subdivision Applications” folder.
Zoning Appeal Materials are also accessible electronically via the “Document Center” on the City web site, under “Board of Zoning Appeals."
Agenda
You may access this agenda (including attachments) by going to the “Agenda Center” on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/agendacenter),
under “Planning & Development Board.” For ease‐of‐access, a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda will always be accessible on the
Planning Board home page: http://www.cityofithaca.org/354/Planning‐Development‐Board.
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
November 24, 2015
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Department of Planning and Development
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
Re: Site Plan Review Conditions Updates – 210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
Dear JoAnn:
The purpose of this submission is to fulfill all of the conditions imposed by the Board at its August 25, 2015
meeting that could be met prior to construction. In addition this letter will explain where the applicant is in
the subdivision process.
Site Plan Review Conditions, Updates and Resolution
Condition i: Fully executed Development Agreement between City and INHS, as well as Street
Discontinuance by Common Council, for portions of Lake Ave and Adams St.
This Agreement has been executed. Please see the attached Development Agreement for
Discontinuance of Lake Ave and Adams Street, September 15, 2015.
Condition ii: Any additional work in the City Right of Way, not subject to the previously mentioned
Development Agreement will require a Street Permit.
The Applicant confirms that this condition will be satisfied during construction.
Condition iii: The sidewalks on Hancock and First shall remain open during construction except during
limited aspects of construction, except for short term temporary closures necessary for public safety during
certain limited aspects of Construction.
The Applicant confirms that the general contractor will keep the sidewalks on Hancock and First
streets open during construction as described above. Please see the attached Construction Staging
Plan, November 24, 2015.
Condition iv: The applicant will prohibit its contractors from parking on Willow Ave, due to its narrow width
and potential conflict with existing Cornell Coop Extension overflow parking and resident parking during
construction, and will provide contractor parking in a nearby surface lot.
The Applicant confirms that the project team and general contractor will prohibit its contractors from
parking on Willow Avenue during construction and will provide contractor parking in a nearby
surface lot. Please see the attached Construction Staging Plan, November 24, 2015.
Condition v: Submission of colored elevations of all building facades with keyed building materials.
2 of 4
Please see the attached colored building Elevations, and related Exterior Finish Schedule, November
24, 2015.
Condition vi: Submission to the Planning Board of all project details, including but not limited to building
materials, site furnishings, lighting, signage, paving, fencing, and railings.
The attached exhibits provide all available project details, including site furnishings, lighting,
signage, paving, fencing and railings. Primary building and site material samples shall be provided
to the board for review during the November 24th Site Plan Review meeting.
Condition vii: Submission to the Planning Board of a landscape plan showing a greater variety of trees in
the park-like areas (around the playground and in the green space where Lake Ave will be discontinued).
The attached planting plan illustrates a greater variety of trees in the park like areas as requested.
Specifically, two additional tree species, Northern Catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) and Horsechestnut
(Aesculus hippocastaneum) and have been substituted into the plan for Swamp White Oak
(Quercus bicolor) near the playground area. Please see the attached L401 Planting Plan, November
24, 2015.
Condition viii: Submission to the Planning Board of revised drawings and elevations of the proposed
townhomes that demonstrate the applicant’s stated design approach that the homes will reference various
later 19th/early 20th century residential architectural styles and will utilize a mix of materials and colors to
provide architectural diversity.
Please see the attached Townhouse Elevations, November 24, 2015.
Condition ix: Submission to the Planning Board of a drawing showing screening of above ground NYSEG
transformers.
The attached updated planting plan and landscape site plan illustrate screening of the above
ground NYSEG transformer within the site. Please see the attached L201 Layout Plan and L401
Planting Plan, November 24, 2015.
Condition x: Submission to the Planning Board of a Construction Staging Plan.
Please see the attached GEN C100 Staging Plan, November 24, 2015.
Condition xi: All rooftop mechanicals shall be screened from public view or architecturally integrated into
the building.
The Applicant confirms that the rooftop mechanicals will not be visible from public view. Rooftop
mechanical equipment will be limited to small condensing units, with a maximum height of 2’-8”.
These units will be located a minimum of 12’ from the building perimeter, and sit behind a 1’-6” tall
architectural parapet wall as indicated in the attached Roof Plan and Perspective Views, November
24, 2015.
3 of 4
Condition xii: Except for pile installation, noise producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday
through Friday 7:30 am to 7:30 pm.
The Applicant agrees to limit noise-production construction activities to Monday through Friday 7:30
am to 7:30 pm.
Condition xiii: Vibratory pile installation shall be limited to Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
The Applicant agrees to limit vibratory pile installation to Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Please see the attached specification section 31 62 16 Steel Piles, dated November 24, 2015 for
confirmation of this scheduling requirement.
Condition xiv: In relation to vibratory pile installation, submission to the Planning Board of the bid
specification requirements for building condition surveys prior to construction and vibration monitoring
during construction, as well as documentation that these tasks will be done by a third party engineering firm
specializing in these services and following NYSDOT’s guidelines.
As requested, we are providing the bid specification requirements for the building condition surveys
and vibration monitoring during construction. These materials affirm that the inspection and
monitoring tasks will be conducted by a third party engineering firm specializing in these services,
and following NYSDOT’s guidelines. See the attached two specification sections for confirmation of
these requirements: 00 31 21 Preconstruction Surveys of Adjacent Buildings, and 31 09 13
Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring, both dated November 24, 2015.
Condition xv: Removal of any City Trees will require a City Tree Permit.
The Applicant confirms that it will not remove any trees until it receives a City Tree Permit.
Condition xvi: Approval of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by City of Ithaca
Stormwater Management Officer.
The Applicant has submitted this plan to the City of Ithaca’s Stormwater Management Officer, Scott
Gibson. At this time, we are awaiting approval of that plan.
Condition xvii: Bicycle racks must be installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
The Applicant confirms that bicycle racks will be installed prior to issuance of the C of O.
Subdivision
The need for a subdivision was included in the project’s SEQR documents. As noted in previous Site Plan
submission materials, the project will be subdividing 210 Hancock Street to separate the INHS rental project
from the owner-occupied units. Specifically, the south east corner of the 210 Hancock Street parcel at the
4 of 4
corner of Hancock and Lake Avenue is proposed to be subdivided from the larger parcel. Furthermore, 423
First Street will be incorporated into 210 Hancock Street. The Applicant is discussing the legal steps to
subdivide the parcel with City Planning and Zoning Staff and will provide an update when a decision has
been made as to how to proceed. The attached Draft Subdivision Map November 24, 2015 illustrates the
intended subdivision action, to be formally submitted at a later date.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We are looking
forward to presenting the project updates at the November 24, 2015 meeting.
Sincerely,
Peter Trowbridge, RLA, FASLA
Principal
Exhibits:
1. Development Agreement or Discontinuance of Lake Ave and Adams Street, September 15, 2015
2. Exterior Finish Schedule, November 24, 2015
3. Specification Section 00 31 21 Preconstruction Survey of Adjacent Buildings, November 24, 2015
4. Specification Section 31 09 13 Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring, November 24, 2015
5. Specification Section 31 62 16 Steel Piles, November 24, 2015
6. Site Plan Rendering, November 24, 2015
7. L201 Layout Plan, November 24, 2015
8. L401 Planting Plan, November 24, 2015
9. L501 Site Details, November 24, 2015
10. L502 Site Details, November 24, 2015
11. L503 Site Details, November 24, 2015
12. Architectural Plans, November 24, 2015
13. Roof Plan, November 24, 2015
14. Elevations , November 24, 2015
15. Elevations, November 24, 2015
16. Townhouse Elevations, November 24, 2015
17. Townhouse Elevations, November 24, 2015
18. Perspective Views, November 24, 2015
19. Perspective Views, November 24, 2015
20. Construction Staging Plan, November 24 2015
21. Draft Subdivision Map, November 24, 2015
August 24, 2015 Board of Public Works Meeting – Final Resolution
Resolution Authorizing Agreement with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services for
Future Improvements to Lake Avenue and the Eastern Portion of Adams Street
By Commissioner Darling: Seconded by Commissioner Jenkins
WHEREAS, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) in 2014 purchased the parcel
known as 210 Hancock Street and began seeking community and Planning Board input; and
WHEREAS, based on this input, INHS has proposed a development plan of the 210 Hancock
parcel that includes improvements to Lake Avenue for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway and
incorporation of a playground structure in the eastern section of Adams Street; and
WHEREAS, City staff is generally supportive of the development plans proposed by INHS, and
INHS is in the process of obtaining site plan approval; and
WHEREAS, INHS has agreed to construct and maintain such improvements at its cost in
accordance with City specifications affording City vehicles the ability to continue to access the
creek through the improved site as needed for public works or safety purposes; and
WHEREAS, the improvements and land underneath such improvements shall be the property of
the City, and will be open to the public; and
WHEREAS, INHS has agreed to be responsible for maintenance and liabilities resulting from
use of the improved site, except for any liabilities which are caused by the City’s negligence or
willful misconduct, which shall be the City’s responsibility; and
WHEREAS, in consideration for these agreements, the City has agreed to seek discontinuance
of Lake Avenue and the eastern portion of Adams Street; and
WHEREAS, the discontinuance process will require environmental review, public comment, and
discretionary approval (or denial) by the Board of Public Works; and
WHEREAS, INHS has asked for an agreement from the City that it commits to seek
discontinuance in order to satisfy certain requirements related to the Low Income Housing Tax
Credits that INHS is seeking; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council is considering a resolution to this same effect; now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED, That the Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement with INHS substantially
similar to that included herewith, and for a term not to exceed fifty (50) years, concerning the
use of Lake Avenue and the eastern portion of Adams Street.
Carried Unanimously
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule November 24, 2015
Page 1 of 9
Multifamily Building:
Masonry:
Brick Color 1 (Red): Redland Brick Inc., KF Brick ‐ #073 Heritage S
Brick Color 2 (Brown): Carolina Ceramics – Teakwood Velour
Brick Color 3 (White): Redland Brick Inc., Hamar #941 Modular Whitehall
Ground Polished Concrete Masonry Units: Barnes & Cone Architectural Masonry, Beamish
Cast Stone Sills: Heritage Cast Stone ‐ Graystone
Metal Panels:
Composite Metal Panel Color 1 (Gray): Alpolic – CNC Charcoal, 3‐CNC‐30, LRV 4.20
Composite Metal Panel Color 2 (Yellow): Alpolic – EYL Yellow, 3‐YLW‐45, LRV 49.88
Composite Metal Panel Color 3 (White): Alpolic – BPS Pearl, 3‐BPS‐30, LRV 68.79
Corrugated Metal Panel Color 1 (Gray): Morin – Blue Gray, SR 0.27 E 0.85 SRI: 26
Corrugated Metal Panel Color 2 (Yellow): Morin – Custom Color to Match Alpolic – EYL Yellow
Metal Trim:
Aluminum Coping Color 1 (Gray): Match Morin – Blue Gray
Aluminum Coping Color 2 (Yellow) Match Alpolic – EYL Yellow
Aluminum Clad Overhang (Gray) Match Morin – Blue Gray
Railings and Decking:
Metal Railings (Gray): Galvanized Steel – Shop finish to match Morin – Blue Gray
Metal Screening below deck (Gray): Corrugated Galvanized Steel – Shop finish to match Morin – Blue Gray
Decking Material: Trex Enhance Composite Decking – Saddle
Windows:
Fiberglass Hybrid Windows: Anderson 100 Series – Sandstone
Aluminum Storefront: Kawneer ‐ Clear Anodized Aluminum
Aluminum Doors: Color to Match Alpolic ‐ EYL Yellow
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 2 of 9
Townhouse Building:
Siding:
Siding Color 1 (Red): CertainTeed Monogram 46 – Double 4” Clapboard – Autumn Red
o Alternate JamesHardie HardiePlank Lap Siding – Countrylane Red
Siding Color 2 (Light Blue) CertainTeed Monogram 46 – Double 4” Clapboard – Flagstone
o Alternate JamesHardie HardiePlank Lap Siding – Boothbay Blue
Siding Color 3 (Cedar Shake) CertainTeed Cedar Impressions – Double 7” Shingle – Mountain Cedar
o Alternate JamesHardie HardieShingle Siding – Tuscan Gold
Siding Color 4 (Taupe) CertainTeed Monogram 46 – Double 4” Clapboard – Hearthstone
o Alternate JamesHardie HardiePlank Lap Siding – Monterey Taupe
Siding Color 5 (Gray‐Brown) CertainTeed Monogram 46 – Double 4” Clapboard – Sable Brown
o Alternate JamesHardie HardiePlank Lap Siding – Timber Bark
Siding Color 6 (Gray‐Brown) CertainTeed Cedar Impressions – Double 7” Shingle – Sable Brown
o Alternate JamesHardie HardieShingle Siding – Timber Bark
Siding Color 7 (Green) CertainTeed Monogram 46 – Double 4” Clapboard – Spruce
o Alternate JamesHardie HardiePlank Lap Siding – Heathered Moss
Trim
Trim Color 1 (Off White) Certainteed Vinyl Trim – Sandstone Beige
o Alternate JamesHardie HardieTrim Boards – Cobble Stone
Trim Color 2 (Beige) Certainteed Vinyl Trim – Desert Tan
o Alternate JamesHardie HardieTrim Boards – Navajo Beige
Trim Color 3 (Gray) Certainteed Vinyl Trim – Natural Clay
o Alternate JamesHardie HardieTrim Boards – Monterey Taupe
Window
Fiberglass Hybrid Windows: Anderson 100 Series – Sandstone
Shingle
Asphalt Shingle: CertainTeed Landmark Designer Shingles – Weathered Wood
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 3 of 9
Masonry:
Brick Color 1 (Red): Redland Brick Inc., KF Brick ‐ #073 Heritage S
Brick Color 2 (Brown): Carolina Ceramics – Teakwood Velour
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 4 of 9
Brick Color 3 (White): Redland Brick Inc., Hamar #941 Modular Whitehall
Ground Polished Concrete Masonry Units: Barnes & Cone Architectural Masonry, Beamish
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 5 of 9
Metal Panels:
Composite Metal Panel Color 1 (Gray): Alpolic – CNC Charcoal, 3‐CNC‐30, LRV 4.20
Composite Metal Panel Color 2 (Yellow): Alpolic – EYL Yellow, 3‐YLW‐45, LRV 49.88
Composite Metal Panel Color 3 (White): Alpolic – BPS Pearl, 3‐BPS‐30, LRV 68.79
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 6 of 9
Metal Panels:
Corrugated Metal Panel Color 1 (Gray): Morin – Blue Gray, SR 0.27 E 0.85 SRI: 26
Corrugated Metal Panel Color 2 (Yellow): Morin – Custom Color to Match Alpolic – EYL Yellow
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 7 of 9
Siding CertainTeed Monogram 46 – Double 4” Clapboard
o Alternate JamesHardie HardiePlank Lap Siding
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 8 of 9
Windows:
Fiberglass Hybrid Windows: Anderson 100 Series – Sandstone
Aluminum Storefront: Kawneer ‐ Clear Anodized Aluminum
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment INHS
Exterior Finish Schedule
Page 9 of 9
Shingle
Asphalt Shingle: CertainTeed Landmark Designer Shingles – Weathered Wood
Decking Material: Trex Enhance Composite Decking – Saddle
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS 00 31 21- 1
November 24, 2015
SECTION 00 31 21 – PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY
A. The objective of the pre-construction survey is to assess the condition of the buildings
within a 100’ distance from pile driving operations for the purpose of developing a pre-
construction condition baseline
1.2 REFERENCES
A. NYS DOT EI 05-044 Special Specification for Building Condition Survey and Vibration
Monitoring (Non-Blasting).
B. NYS DOT Item 634.9901 17 Building Condition Survey
1.3 SUBMITTALS
A. Submit name and qualifications of the firm selected to conduct the Preconstruction
Survey.
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS
A. The Contractor shall engage the services of a firm capable of furnishing a New York
State licensed Professional Engineer to conduct a condition survey of the existing
buildings shown in Attachment A of this specification. This firm shall have been in
business a minimum of 5 years and shall have completed similar pre-construction
building surveys on a minimum of 3 previous projects.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.1 NOT USED
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.1 BUILDING CONDITION SURVEYS
A. Building Condition surveys shall identify and document the following for each property
surveyed:
1. Photographic and videotape documentation of the interior and exterior condition of
the building(s).
2. Extent and location of existing signs of building distress such as cracks, spalling,
signs of settlement, flooding, leaking, etc.
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS 00 31 21- 2
November 24, 2015
B. Provide two copies of all documentation of each building condition survey.
C. Information to be provided by the Owner – Consent and Release.
1. The Owner will furnish a list of the address of each property to be included in the
Preconstruction Building Survey. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to contact these
property owners and/or Occupants and to schedule a Building Condition Survey
assessment with them for each property listed.
2. The Owner will provide a Consent Agreement to be signed by each Property Owner
and/or Occupant prior to entering their property for the purpose of conducting the
Preconstruction Building Condition Survey.
3. The Owner will provide a Release Agreement to be signed by each Property Owner
and/or Occupant who declines to allow for the inspection of their property.
END OF SECTION 00 31 21
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING 31 09 13- 1
November 24, 2015
SECTION 31 09 13 – GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY
A. Work included in this section shall consist of installing, maintaining and monitoring
specialized vibration monitoring equipment (seismographs) to determine peak particle
velocities prior to and throughout Pile Driving activities.
1.2 REFERENCES
A. NYS DOT EI 05-044 Special Specification for Building Condition Survey and Vibration
Monitoring (Non-Blasting).
B. NYS DOT Item 634.9902 17 Vibration Monitoring (Nonblasting)
1.3 SUBMITTALS
A. Submit name and qualifications of the firm selected to perform Vibration Monitoring.
B. Submit to the Engineer a written Vibration Monitoring Plan a minimum of 10 work days
prior to the start of pile driving operations. See below for minimum requirements of
the Vibration Monitoring Plan.
C. Submit to the Engineer manufacturer’s literature on the required 3-component
seismographs, capable of measuring particle velocity in three mutually perpendicular
directions, including the manufacturer’s name, model number, and documentation of
factory calibration performed within the previous 12 month period.
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS
A. The Contractor shall engage the services of a Vibration Monitoring Consultant who has
performed Vibration Monitoring Services on a minimum of two projects in the past five
years, where the Vibration Monitoring Consultant has satisfactorily monitored
construction operations by recording maximum peak particle velocities (PPV’s).
Include contact information for each reference.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
A. Vibration monitoring equipment shall be capable of recording measured vibration levels
and real-time notification to a minimum of 5 people via cell phone texts, email
messages, and/or cell phone calls each time the “Alert” PPV level is reached.
1. Safeguard Seismic Unit (SSU) 3000 series microprocessor-controlled
ground vibration and air overpressure recorder by Geosonics, Warrendale,
PA or approved equal.
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING 31 09 13- 2
November 24, 2015
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.1 VIBRATION MONITORING PLAN
A. The Vibration Monitoring Plan shall include but not be limited to the following items:
1. The scheduled start date and length of construction operations which require
vibration monitoring
2. Locations for the vibration monitoring devices. Required protection for the
devices and source of power. Appropriate details for anchoring and security.
3. The procedure for tracking PPV throughout Pile Driving Operations, and for
correlating PPV with Pile Driving Operations.
4. Persons or companies responsible for initial set-up and ongoing
maintenance of the monitoring devices.
5. Procedures to be used for ongoing remote monitoring and notification when
established thresholds are reached, including an approved list of person’s to
be notified when the “Alert” level is reached.
6. Procedures to be used for recording and periodic reporting of vibration
monitoring.
B. Methods and Procedures
1. The Engineer, Contractor’s on-site Superintendent, and other person’s as
identified in the approved Vibration Monitoring Plan shall be notified via cell
phone texts, email messages, and/or cell phone calls each time the “Alert”
PPV level is reached.
a. The Alert level is to be set at 0.8”/s (20 mm/s) measured no closer
than 25’ from the closest pile driver.
b. If PPV levels exceed 1.5”/sec at 25’, Contractor is to cease pile
driving operations. Adjustments to Pile Driving Procedures may be
required. Pile Driving Operations shall not continue without the
approval of the Engineer of Record.
c. At the completion of the work, the Vibration Monitoring Consultant
shall submit to the Engineer a written report documenting and
summarizing the recorded Vibration (PPV) levels over the duration of
Pile Driving operations.
END OF SECTION 31 09 13
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 1
November 24, 2015
SECTION 31 62 16 - STEEL PILES
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY
A. Section Includes:
1. Rolled steel section piles.
2. Engineered design of steel piles by a licensed New York State Professional
Engineer employed by the Contractor to achieve the minimum working loads
provided in the Contract Documents.
3. Pile Installation using Vibratory Pile Driving Equipment.
4. Pile Testing to verify required capacities are achieved
B. Related Sections:
1. 00 31 21 - Preconstruction Survey of Adjacent Buildings
2. 00 31 32 - Geotechnical Report and Soil Borings
3. Section 03 30 00 - Cast-In-Place Concrete: Concrete requirements for
placement of pile caps and grade beams.
4. Section 31 09 13 – Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring
5. Section 31 09 16 - Pile Load Tests: Requirements for pile load tests.
6. Section 31 23 16 - Excavation: Excavating to working level.
C. Work Included:
1. The Work of this section consists of furnishing all engineering design, labor,
equipment, materials and performing all operations necessary to install
vibratory driven steel pipe piles for foundation support at the locations shown
and to the minimum load bearing capacities given on the Contract Drawings.
2. Steel pipe piles shall consist of a minimum 12 ¾” OD close-ended steel pipe
pile, vibratory driven to a minimum depth of 85’ and then as required to
achieve the required pile capacity. Steel sections shall have a minimum wall
thickness of ½ inch, a fully welded minimum 3/4” thick bottom plate, and
shall be ASTM A252 Grade 2 or Grade 3 (45 ksi) steel. Steel pipe piles may
be filled with minimum 3,000 psi concrete or left unfilled according to the Pile
Contractor’s Engineered Design.
3. Pile Driving work also includes Load Testing (reference Section 31 09 16)
and Vibration Monitoring (reference Section 31 09 13).
4. Provide all surveying required for field stake-out and documentation of as-
built conditions of piles.
5. Comply with the City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance. Pile Driving Operations
shall only be permitted Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00
am and 4:00 pm.
1.2 REFERENCES
A. ASTM International:
1. ASTM A36/A36M - Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel.
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 2
November 24, 2015
2. ASTM A572 - Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy
Columbium-Vanadium Structural Steel.
3. ASTM A588 - Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural
Steel with 50 ksi (345 MPa) Minimum Yield Point to 4-in. (100-mm) Thick.
4. ASTM A690/A690M - Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy
Nickel, Copper, Phosphorus Steel H-Piles and Sheet Piling with Atmospheric
Corrosion Resistance for Use in Marine Environments.
5. ASTM A913/A913M - Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy
Steel Shapes of Structural Quality, Produced by Quenching and Self-
Tempering Process (QST).
6. ASTM A992/A992M - Standard Specification for Structural Steel Shapes.
B. American Welding Society:
1. AWS D1.1 - Structural Welding Code - Steel.
2. AWS D1.5 - Bridge Welding Code.
C. SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings:
1. SSPC PA 2 - Measurement of Dry Coating Thickness with Magnetic Gages.
2. SSPC SP 5 - White Metal Blast Cleaning.
1.3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Piles are to be vibratory driven to the working load supporting capacity as indicated on
Drawings, as determined by pile load testing (reference specification section 31 09
16).
B. Piles shall develop an ultimate load capacity of at least twice the required design
working load capacity provided in the Contract Drawings.
1.4 PRE-INSTALLATION SUBMITTALS
A. Section 01 33 00 - Submittal Procedures: Requirements for submittals.
B. Contractor shall the following information including shop drawings and computations.
Computations shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in
the State of New York:
1. Pile Details including, but not limited to, nominal diameter, length, pile tips,
and pumping pressures.
2. Details of equipment and procedures for pile installation including, but not
limited to, the type, size and configuration of the vibratory hammer and
driving hammer (for pile load testing), helmet, and cushion to be used,
consecutive steps and the approximate time required for each step.
Acceptance of the pile driving equipment will not relieve the Contractor’s
responsibility for properly installing piles, in satisfactory condition, to the
driving criteria indicated.
3. Procedures for advancing through debris, timber, boulders, and other
obstructions.
4. Methods to be used to control and verify pile position and alignment.
5. Procedures for control and removal of all spoil.
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 3
November 24, 2015
6. Procedures and equipment for placing concrete, if piles are to be concrete
filled.
7. Pile identification plan showing the pile type, pile numbering, and proposed
sequence of pile installation.
8. Specifications and procedure on proposed pile splices, if necessary,
including welder’s certifications. No more than one (1) splice per pile shall
be permitted.
9. Certified mill test reports properly marked for the steel pile and indicating:
ultimate strength, elongation and material properties composition.
10. Concrete mix design, including documentation of test results from an
independent laboratory, and procedures for placing concrete, if piles are to
be filled.
C. Work shall not begin until these Submittals have been received, reviewed and approved
in writing by the Engineer. Contractor shall allow the Engineer 10 working days to
review the shop drawing submittal after a complete set has been received.
1.5 PILE INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTALS
A. Section 01 70 00 - Execution and Closeout Requirements.
B. Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Engineer installation records for each pile
installed. The records shall include the following minimum information:
1. Sizes, lengths, and locations of piles.
2. Locations and tests results for each test pile (reference Section 31 09 16 for
Pile Load Tests).
3. Sequence of driving.
4. Identify piles which required drilling, including hole diameters.
5. Final base and top elevations.
6. Concrete quantities pumped, if piles are filled.
1.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Monitor pile driving operations by Special Inspector or Geotechnical Engineer
experienced in this Work and licensed in the State of New York.
B. Pile Driver to maintain a pile driving log to include as a minimum the required Pile
Installation Documentation information noted above. Pile Drivers Log to be
available on-site for review by Engineer upon request.
1.7 QUALIFICATIONS
A. Installer: Company specializing in performing work of this section with minimum 5 years
documented experience.
B. Welders Certificates: Certify welders employed on the Work, verifying AWS qualification
within previous 12 months.
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 4
November 24, 2015
1.8 PRE-INSTALLATION MEETING
A. Section 01 30 00 - Administrative Requirements.
B. Convene minimum one week prior to commencing Work of this section.
1.9 DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING
A. Section 01 60 00 - Product Requirements: Requirements for transporting, handling,
storing, and protecting products.
B. Pile contractor shall visit the site and become familiar with existing conditions prior to the
start of pile driving operations. All nearby existing buildings and utilities shall be
inspected by the Contractor for interference with delivery and installation. See also
Section 00 31 21 – Preconstruction Survey of Adjacent Buildings.
C. Piles shall be stored in orderly groups above ground sufficiently blocked to minimize
bending stresses and safely secured. Piles exhibiting variations including
permanent distortions beyond specified limits will be considered distorted and shall
not be used in the Work.
D. The Contractor shall investigate the conditions of public thoroughfares and roads as to
availability, clearances, loads, limits, restrictions and other limitations affecting
transportation to, ingress and egress of the site of the Work. The Contractor shall
conform to all New York State, Federal and local regulations in regard to the
transportation of materials to and from and at the job site and shall secure in
advance such permits as may be required.
1.10 SCHEDULING
A. Section 01 30 00 - Administrative Requirements.
B. Schedule Work to perform driving during the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm Monday
through Friday..
C. Schedule test piles.
D. Do not drive piles until excavation or filling of area surrounding piles is completed to
design grades indicated on Drawings.
E. Do not drive piles until mud-line is clear of debris or other material interfering with pile
driving.
F. No concrete shall be placed until all pile driving, including vibratory driving, has been
completed within a radius of 15’, or until the concrete in the last pile (if filled) has set
for at least two days.
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 5
November 24, 2015
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.1 MATERIALS
A. Piles: ASTM A252 Grade 2 or 3. Minimum fy = 45 ksi. Pile piles shall have a minimum
diameter of 12 ¾” OD, a minimum wall thickness of ½”, and a bottom plate minimum
thickness of ¾”.
B. Lengths of pile to be spliced shall be secured in proper alignment prior to welding and in
such a manner that no eccentricity between the axis of the two lengths to be spliced,
or angle between them, results. Sections of pipe shall be spliced to develop the full
strength of the section.
C. Accessories: Points, driving cap; to suit pile shape.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.1 EXAMINATION
A. Section 01 30 00 - Administrative Requirements: Verification of existing conditions
before starting work.
3.2 PREPARATION
A. Protect structures including overhead and buried utilities near the Work, from damage.
B. Prepare to place piles from excavated working elevation.
C. The Contractor shall notify the Owner’s Representative and Geotechnical Engineer at
least 72 hours prior to each day of pile driving to allow for the appropriate personnel
to be on site.
D. Do not commence pile driving operations without verifying that the vibration monitoring
equipment is operational (reference 31 09 13 – Geotechnical Instrumentation and
Monitoring).
E. The Contractor shall perform the Work so as not to cause harmful effects to any
adjacent structures and utilities. Should damage to adjacent structures and utilities
occur, all costs in connection with the repair of such damage and restoration of
damaged construction to its original condition shall be borne by the Contractor.
Reference Sections 00 31 21 – Preconstruction Survey of Adjacent Buildings, and
31 09 13 Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring.
F. The Contractor shall lay-out the pile locations referencing the pre-approved plan.
Engage the services of a licensed land surveyor registered in the State of New York.
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 6
November 24, 2015
G. Pile Length Markings: Mark each pile’s length by painting a horizontal line, at 1’-0”
intervals. Mark the number of feet from the pile point in 5’ intervals. Mark piles at 1”
intervals for the last 5’ of driving.
H. The Contractor shall be prepared to spud and/or pre-drill through obstructions to
facilitate subsequent pile installation.
3.3 TEST PILES – LOAD TESTING
A. The Ultimate Pile Capacity of piles driven with a vibratory hammer shall be verified by re-
driving the first pile driven in each group of 10 piles with an impact hammer of
suitable energy to measure the ultimate pile capacity before driving the remaining
piles in the group. See 31 09 16 Pile Loads Tests for dynamic pile testing.
3.4 INSTALLATION – PILE DRIVING
A. Notify Geotechnical Engineer Prior to the start of Pile Driving Operations.
B. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to provide pile driving methods and equipment
capable of attaining the required pile depth and capacity.
C. The vibration level induced by the Pile Driving Operation must not exceed the vibration
levels as defined in Section 31 09 13 – Geotechnical Instrumentation & Monitoring.
If excessive vibration levels are reached, immediately discontinue Pile Driving
Operations. Modifications to Pile Driving Procedures may be required.
D. Use rigid frame, fixed lead type driving equipment capable of supporting pile firmly in
vertical position or to required batter.
E. Where groups of piles are required, drive center pile of group first and then drive
remaining piles in group progressing outward from center.
F. Continuously drive piles to minimum tip penetration and to driving resistance indicated
on Drawings. Take corrective action, when required, to prevent observable impact
bowing of pile at final driving resistance.
G. When driving resistance prohibits advancing pile to required minimum tip penetration,
spud, jet, jet and drive, or use other means as necessary to advance pile to required
minimum tip penetration. Then drive pile to required resistance indicated on
Drawings. After jetting pile, re-drive adjacent piles to required resistance.
H. Pre-drilling or pre-augering hole of maximum diameter 2 inches smaller than pile flange
dimension may be used to advance pile to penetration no deeper than required
minimum tip penetration. Then drive pile to required resistance indicated on
Drawings. In granular soils below ground water level, stabilize hole by use of drilling
fluids.
I. Protect pile head during driving, using cap-block cushion consisting of alternate plates of
phenolic laminate and aluminum designed to prevent damage to piles while
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 7
November 24, 2015
transmitting required hammer energy to pile top as indicated on Drawings, with full
bearing on pile butt for even distribution of hammer blow.
J. Deliver hammer blows to central axis of pile.
K. When driving is interrupted before refusal, drive an additional 12 inches before resuming
recording of performance data.
L. Re-drive piles which have lifted due to driving adjacent piles, or by soil uplift.
M. Do not damage piles during driving operations.
N. Cut off tops of piles to elevations indicated and prepare pile top to receive pile caps and
grade beams.
O. The Contractor shall not demobilize his equipment from the Project site until all piles are
installed and accepted, or until directed to do so by the Owner.
3.5 WELDING AND SPLICING
A. Perform welding in accordance with AWS D1.1 for shielded metal arc welding.
B. Only use welders qualified in accordance with AWS D1.1.
C. Reinforce pile tips, as indicated in the Specification.
D. Splice pile sections with one of the following:
1. Complete penetration butt weld of flanges and web.
2. Splicer sleeve with flanges welded with full penetration groove welds.
E. Use jig or alignment device during welding to maintain required specified.
F. For splices made during pile installation, rigid frame pile leads may be used as jig.
G. Use only butt weld splices within 20 feet from pile cut-off elevation or design grade,
whichever is lower.
3.6 ERECTION TOLERANCES
A. Section 01 40 00 - Quality Requirements: Tolerances.
B. Maximum Variation from Vertical for Plumb Piles: 1 in 48.
C. Maximum Variation from Required Angle for Batter Piles: 1 in 24.
D. Maximum Variation from Pile Cut-Off Elevation: 4 inches.
E. Maximum Out-of-Position: 2 inches.
F. Maximum Variation in Centerline after Splicing: 3/8 inch in 40 feet for undriven portion.
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
Hancock Street Redevelopment
HOLT Project No. 2014055
STEEL PILES 31 62 16 - 8
November 24, 2015
3.7 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL
A. Section 01 45 33 – Code Required Special Inspections and Procedures
B. Perform load tests to requirements of Section 31 09 16.
C. Test Piles: Same diameter and type as specified for other piling, placed in same manner.
D. Accepted test piles may be used in the Work.
E. Unacceptable Piles: Piles that fail tests, are placed out of position, are below cut-off
elevations, or are damaged. The Contractor shall repair the damaged piles
(deemed allowable by the Engineer), or shall install replacement piles to replace the
unacceptable piles at his own cost. The costs of inspection during pile repair, or
replacement of pile installation and redesign and enlargement of pile caps resulting
from the unacceptable piles shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. If any
previously driven piles have heaved or lifted, then they shall be re-driven to the
required load bearing capacity with additional cost.
F. Piles rejected after driving may be withdrawn or abandoned and cut-off. Fill any
abandoned pile piles or holes left in the ground with cohesionless soil material, such
as gravel, sand, or gravel-sand mixtures. Place and compact throughout the length
of the space.
G. Drive additional piles where the centerline deviation exceeds 2 inches and an analytical
determination indicates the load on any pile exceeds 110% of the design load.
END OF SECTION
4
5
2
2
7
6 7
1
1
3
3
3
8
1. COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR WITH RESIDENTIAL ABOVE
2. COVERED PARKING WITH RESIDENTIAL ABOVE
3. TOWNHOMES
4. BIKE PARKING
5. BUS STOP
6. INTERIOR STREET
7. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN WAY
8. PLAYGROUND
LEGEND
4
0 30’60’
MIXED USE BUILDINGS
MULTIFAMLY BUILDINGS
TOWNHOMES
KEY
SCALE
4
4
HANCOCK STREET
ADAMS STREET
ALI
C
E
M
I
L
L
E
R
W
A
Y
CONLEY
PARK
LA
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
R
O
W
CA
S
C
A
D
I
L
L
A
C
R
E
E
K
WI
L
L
O
W
A
V
E
N
U
E
FI
R
S
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
SITE PLAN
NOVEMBER 14, 2015
B B
B
B
B
A
A
AA TRANSITION GRANITE TOCONCRETE CURB (TYP)
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
E
,
SE
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
DW
G
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
F
R
O
M
VE
H
I
C
U
L
A
R
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
TO
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
POTENTIAL ON S
T
R
E
E
T
LOADING
Z
O
N
E
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
WI
T
H
V
E
H
I
C
U
L
A
R
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
S
AT
E
A
C
H
C
O
R
N
E
R
AD
A
L
I
F
T
(S
E
E
A
R
C
H
)
30
.
5
0
'
4.00'
18.00'22.00'8.50'8.50'22.00'48.50'
22.00'
22.00'
12.00'
5.
7
5
'
5.
0
0
'
5.
0
0
'
15
.
5
0
'
24
.
0
0
'
18
.
0
0
'
8.25'6.00'16.25'5.00'4.00'
4.
0
0
'
5.
0
0
'
5.00'8.00'
8.00'
5.00
'
8.50'8.00'18.00'9.50'+/-7.75'
31.25'29.50'
6.
0
0
'
+/-5.00'
+/
-
8
.
0
0
'
3.
0
0
'
(
T
Y
P
)
8.00'
12.50'
9.75'
7.50'
9.75'
6.
2
5
'
8.50'
4.75'
15
.
5
0
'
26.00'
18
.
5
0
'
10.00'
9.75'
12.25'
7.25'
8.
0
0
'
14.25'8.50'
8.25'18.50'
R8.0'R8.0'11.50'23.25'
8.00'
21
.
7
5
'
3.
0
0
'
(
T
Y
P
)
4.
0
0
'
4.
0
0
'
5.
0
0
'
4.
0
0
'
B7L501ADA CURB RAMPGRANITE CURBBUS SHELTERGRANITE CURBASPHALT PATCH (TYP)ADA CURB RAMP
BE
N
C
H
BI
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
S
(
3
)
BE
N
C
H
BO
L
L
A
R
D
S
(
4
)
ADA CURB RAMP PRECAST CONCRETEROCK CURB PRECAST CONCRETEROCK CURBBICYCLE RACKS (4)PRECAST CONCRET
E
R
O
C
K
C
U
R
B
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
ADA CU
R
B
R
A
M
P
FL
U
S
H
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
BO
L
L
A
R
D
(
T
Y
P
O
F
5
)
FL
U
S
H
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
G
R
A
N
I
T
E
T
O
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
ASPHALT PATCH
FL
U
S
H
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
CU
R
B
BI
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
S
(
4
)
AS
P
H
A
L
T
P
A
T
C
H
AD
A
C
U
R
B
R
A
M
P
GR
A
N
I
T
E
C
U
R
B
GR
A
N
I
T
E
C
U
R
B
AD
A
C
U
R
B
R
A
M
P
GR
A
N
I
T
E
C
U
R
B
AD
A
C
U
R
B
RA
M
P
AS
P
H
A
L
T
P
A
T
C
H
GR
A
N
I
T
E
C
U
R
B
PRECAST CONCRETE ROCK CURBB5L501C5L501D7L502C3L501C5L501B7L501C3L501B5L501C3L501
C9
L5
0
1
B5
L5
0
1
B7
L5
0
1
C5
L5
0
1
B7
L5
0
1
B5
L5
0
1
C5
L5
0
1
C5
L5
0
1
B5
L5
0
1
C5
L5
0
1
B5
L5
0
1
C7
L5
0
1
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
G
R
A
N
I
T
E
T
O
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
(
T
Y
P
)
C7
L5
0
1
C7
L5
0
1
C3L501B5L501GRANITE CURBASPHALT PATCH (TYP)C5L501B7L501
R
5
.
0
0
'
(
T
Y
P
)
R5.
0
0
'
(TY
P
)
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
GA
T
E
B8
L5
0
2
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
GA
T
E
(
T
Y
P
)
A9
L5
0
3
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
EQ
U
I
P
T
M
E
N
T
TO
B
E
CO
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
D
DU
R
I
N
G
C
D
'
S
R5.
0
0
'
(TY
P
)
9.25'28.00'28.2
5
'
26.11'1.28'ADA PAVEMENTMARKINGS A1L502 7.61'15.19'21.27'8.93'7.94'
34
.
8
7
'
4.72'
30.55'19.65'26.37'17.26'
CR
O
S
S
W
A
L
K
MA
R
K
I
N
G
S
(
T
Y
P
)
R4.2
5
'
(TY
P
)
L5
0
3
D4
L503 D3
CR
O
S
S
W
A
L
K
MA
R
K
I
N
G
S
(
T
Y
P
)
CROSSWALKMARKINGS (TYP)
00
20
'
40
'
Scale: 1" = 20'
1.
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
N
O
T
I
F
Y
A
L
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
O
W
N
E
R
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
ON
S
I
T
E
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
N
T
A
C
T
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
AN
D
L
O
C
A
T
E
A
L
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
A
N
Y
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
.
2.
S
E
E
C
I
V
I
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
L
A
Y
O
U
T
O
F
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
.
3.
S
E
E
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
L
A
Y
O
U
T
O
F
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
A
N
D
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
.
4.
A
L
L
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
R
A
D
I
I
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
2
'
U
N
L
E
S
S
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
N
O
T
E
D
.
5.
S
I
T
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
S
U
R
V
E
Y
B
Y
:
T.
G
.
M
I
L
L
E
R
P
C
20
3
N
o
r
t
h
A
u
r
o
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
1
4
8
5
0
(6
0
7
)
2
7
2
-
6
4
7
7
GE
N
E
R
A
L
S
H
E
E
T
N
O
T
E
S
-
L
A
Y
O
U
T
LI
G
H
T
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
PO
L
E
T
O
P
L
I
G
H
T
(
S
E
E
E
3
/
L
5
0
2
)
BO
L
L
A
R
D
L
I
G
H
T
(
S
E
E
E
1
/
L
5
0
2
)
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
B
R
A
H
E
A
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
AB
A3
L5
0
2
NO
T
E
SE
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
S
I
T
E
FE
A
T
U
R
E
S
N
O
T
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
S
U
C
H
A
S
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
ST
A
I
R
S
A
N
D
R
A
M
P
S
C7
L5
0
2
A9
L5
0
2
B5
L5
0
2
A3
L5
0
3
A5
L5
0
3
A7
L5
0
2
A5
L5
0
2
C1
L5
0
1
B3
L5
0
1
A7
L5
0
1
A7
L5
0
1
A1
L5
0
1
A1
L5
0
1
B9
L5
0
1
C9
L5
0
2
A B C D
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
12
3
4
5
A B C D
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
12
3
4
5
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
C
2
0
1
5
IT
I
S
A
V
I
O
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
L
A
W
F
O
R
A
N
Y
PE
R
S
O
N
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
A
C
T
I
N
G
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
DI
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
T
O
A
L
T
E
R
AN
Y
I
T
E
M
O
N
T
H
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
W
H
O
AL
T
E
R
S
T
H
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
I
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
Y
L
A
W
T
O
A
F
F
I
X
H
I
S
O
R
HE
R
S
E
A
L
A
N
D
T
H
E
N
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
"A
L
T
E
R
E
D
B
Y
"
F
O
L
L
O
W
E
D
B
Y
H
I
S
O
R
HE
R
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
A
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
NO
T
I
C
E
:
210 HANCOCK STREET
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
10
0
1
W
.
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
.
,
S
t
e
.
2
0
1
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
1
4
8
5
0
60
7
-
2
7
7
-
1
4
0
0
F
a
x
6
0
7
-
2
7
7
-
6
0
9
2
11
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
5
20
1
4
0
3
0
PJ
T
JB
P
,
J
L
F
NO
T
F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SP
R
SU
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
LA
Y
O
U
T
P
L
A
N
L2
0
1
KE
Y
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
DE
T
A
I
L
AS
P
H
A
L
T
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
ME
D
I
U
M
D
U
T
Y
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
-
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
ME
D
I
U
M
D
U
T
Y
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
-
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
HE
A
V
Y
D
U
T
Y
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
HE
A
V
Y
D
U
T
Y
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
-
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
LI
M
E
S
T
O
N
E
D
U
S
T
P
A
T
H
W
A
Y
W
I
T
H
S
T
E
E
L
E
D
G
I
N
G
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
E
D
W
O
O
D
F
I
B
E
R
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
S
U
R
F
A
C
I
N
G
,
WI
T
H
U
N
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
P
E
R
C
I
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
BE
N
C
H
1
BE
N
C
H
2
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
E
N
C
E
PO
S
T
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
F
E
N
C
E
EC
O
M
E
S
H
S
C
R
E
E
N
W
A
L
L
BO
L
L
A
R
D
TR
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
BI
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
AM1
AM1
AM1
MA2
IV15
SR2
MA2
SR2
SR1AM1
AM1
SA3
SA2
SR1
VP1
SA1QB4
QB4
MA1
SA1SA1 SR1
ME2
RA6 BS4CA8BS5SJ18 CA8CA9RH36 RH20 CA5BS12
SJ3
BS8
SM13
BS3
SJ3
SJ6SM7
IV12
SM5
SJ8BS3SJ6WF5 SJ3 SJ7WF4SM6 WF6WF6
CD13
RA6
WF5
WF5 RA5
HA8
RA13
HA20
HA8 HA14 CA13BS23 WF28
CA13
RH8
HQ1
RH7
SM14
SJ21
WF
12
SJ
14SJ
13
BS14
WF
35
IV14
HA14
HA13
HA15
SR3 SR2 MA2
ME1
AH1
SR2
PO2
CS1
AM1
MA1
SR1
MA1 MA1
MA1
SR1
SR1
QB1 WF20
WF
41
PA
R
14
PA
R
15
MA2
HA18
HA16
CD9
CA8
HA25
HQ1
CA4
CA5
RA3
RA8
RA16
RA5
SM7
MA1 MA1
IV12
SM5
BS10
SM20
RA6
RA7CA3CA3
QB4
QB4
AM1
VP3
VP1
PA
R
8
PA
R
15
PA
R
12
PA
R
14
RA3
RH9
HQ1
SJ5
SM3
CA3
VP3
SM11
VP1
BS5
RA3
RA11
VP1
SM6
WF3
SR1
RA5SJ7
WF6
SM8
WF
12
PA
R
18
PA
R
18
AM1
AM1
SJ4 WF4 BS3
00
20
'
40
'
Scale: 1" = 20'
1.
A
L
L
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
B
E
D
S
T
O
B
E
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
A
S
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
:
S
H
R
U
B
B
E
D
S
T
O
B
E
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
I
R
EN
T
I
R
E
T
Y
W
I
T
H
2
4
"
D
E
P
T
H
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
S
O
I
L
M
I
X
.
T
R
E
E
P
I
T
S
T
O
B
E
D
U
G
T
O
D
E
P
T
H
O
F
R
O
O
T
B
A
L
L
BY
3
X
T
H
E
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
.
2.
A
F
T
E
R
B
E
D
S
A
R
E
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
,
T
H
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
S
T
O
L
O
C
A
T
E
T
R
E
E
S
,
S
H
R
U
B
S
A
N
D
PE
R
E
N
N
I
A
L
S
A
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
P
L
A
N
S
.
T
R
E
E
,
S
H
R
U
B
A
N
D
P
E
R
E
N
N
I
A
L
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
R
E
T
O
B
E
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
B
Y
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
B
E
F
O
R
E
T
H
E
Y
A
R
E
P
L
A
N
T
E
D
.
3.
N
O
P
L
A
N
T
S
A
R
E
T
O
B
E
P
L
A
N
T
E
D
U
N
D
E
R
R
O
O
F
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G
S
O
R
C
A
N
O
P
I
E
S
.
4.
A
L
L
D
I
S
T
U
R
B
E
D
A
R
E
A
S
T
H
A
T
A
R
E
N
O
T
S
H
O
W
N
A
S
P
A
V
E
D
O
R
P
L
A
N
T
E
D
B
E
D
A
R
E
T
O
B
E
S
E
E
D
E
D
AS
L
A
W
N
.
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
A
N
D
S
E
E
D
L
A
W
N
A
S
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
.
5.
A
L
L
T
R
E
E
S
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
T
S
T
O
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
F
A
N
S
I
2
6
0
.
1
"
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
F
O
R
N
U
R
S
E
R
Y
S
T
O
C
K
"
.
6.
A
L
L
T
R
E
E
S
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
T
S
T
O
B
E
S
E
L
E
C
T
E
D
O
R
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
A
T
T
H
E
N
U
R
S
E
R
Y
B
Y
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
,
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
T
O
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
.
7.
M
A
I
N
T
A
I
N
A
N
D
W
A
R
R
A
N
T
Y
A
L
L
L
I
V
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
T
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
A
S
P
E
R
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
S
H
E
E
T
N
O
T
E
S
-
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
E
C
I
D
U
O
U
S
T
R
E
E
SH
A
D
E
/
E
V
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
T
R
E
E
(
D
9
/
L
5
0
1
)
OR
N
A
M
E
N
T
A
L
T
R
E
E
(
D
9
/
L
5
0
1
)
SH
R
U
B
O
R
P
E
R
E
N
N
I
A
L
(
D
7
/
L
5
0
1
)
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
QT
KE
Y
BO
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
N
A
M
E
CO
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
SI
Z
E
R
O
O
T
DE
C
I
D
U
O
U
S
T
R
E
E
S
9
A
M
Ac
e
r
m
i
y
a
b
e
i
'
M
o
r
t
o
n
'
St
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
y
a
b
e
M
a
p
l
e
1
3
/
4
"
T
O
2
1
/
4
"
B
&
B
1
A
H
Ae
s
c
u
l
u
s
h
i
p
p
o
c
a
s
t
a
n
u
m
Ho
r
s
e
-
c
h
e
s
t
n
u
t
1
3
/
4
"
T
O
2
1
/
4
"
B
&
B
1
C
S
Ca
t
a
l
p
a
s
p
e
c
i
o
s
a
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
t
a
l
p
a
1
3
/
4
"
T
O
2
1
/
4
"
B
&
B
17
QB
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
b
i
c
o
l
o
r
Sw
a
m
p
W
h
i
t
e
O
a
k
1
3
/
4
"
T
O
2
1
/
4
"
B
&
B
8
S
A
So
r
b
u
s
a
l
n
i
f
o
l
i
a
Ko
r
e
a
n
W
h
i
t
e
b
e
a
m
1
3
/
4
"
T
O
2
1
/
4
"
B
&
B
OR
N
A
M
E
N
T
A
L
T
R
E
E
S
16
M
A
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
a
c
u
m
i
n
a
t
a
'
Y
e
l
l
o
w
B
i
r
d
'
'Y
e
l
l
o
w
B
i
r
d
'
C
u
c
u
m
b
e
r
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
8
-
1
0
'
B
&
B
3
M
E
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
x
'
E
l
i
z
a
b
e
t
h
'
El
i
z
a
b
e
t
h
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
8
-
1
0
'
B
&
B
18
S
R
Sy
r
i
n
g
a
r
e
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
a
'
I
v
o
r
y
S
i
l
k
'
Iv
o
r
y
S
i
l
k
J
a
p
a
n
e
s
e
T
r
e
e
L
i
l
a
c
8
-
1
0
'
B
&
B
EV
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
T
R
E
E
S
2
P
O
Pi
c
e
a
o
m
o
r
i
k
a
Se
r
b
i
a
n
S
p
r
u
c
e
8
-
1
0
'
B&
B
SH
R
U
B
S
90
B
S
Bu
x
u
s
s
e
m
p
e
r
v
i
r
e
n
s
'
N
o
r
t
h
S
t
a
r
'
No
r
t
h
S
t
a
r
B
o
x
w
o
o
d
#5
C
O
N
T
22
C
D
Ca
l
l
i
c
a
r
p
a
d
i
c
h
o
t
o
m
a
'
E
a
r
l
y
A
m
e
t
h
y
s
t
'
Be
a
u
t
y
b
e
r
r
y
#3
C
O
N
T
3
HQ
Hy
d
r
a
n
g
e
a
q
u
e
r
c
i
f
o
l
i
a
Oa
k
l
e
a
f
H
y
d
r
a
n
g
e
a
#5
C
O
N
T
53
I
V
It
e
a
v
i
r
g
i
n
i
c
a
'
H
e
n
r
y
'
s
G
a
r
n
e
t
'
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a
S
w
e
e
t
s
p
i
r
e
#5
C
O
N
T
11
8
S
J
Sp
i
r
a
e
a
j
a
p
o
n
i
c
a
'
L
e
m
o
n
P
r
i
n
c
e
s
s
'
Le
m
o
n
P
r
i
n
c
e
s
s
S
p
i
r
e
a
#3
C
O
N
T
10
5
S
M
Sp
i
r
a
e
a
x
m
e
d
i
a
'
S
n
o
w
S
t
o
r
m
'
Sn
o
w
S
t
o
r
m
S
p
i
r
e
a
#3
C
O
N
T
.
10
V
P
Vi
b
u
r
n
u
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
u
m
t
o
m
e
n
t
o
s
u
m
'
S
h
a
s
t
a
'
Sh
a
s
t
a
D
o
u
b
l
e
f
i
l
e
V
i
b
u
r
n
u
m
#5
C
O
N
T
.
19
2
W
F
We
i
g
e
l
a
f
l
o
r
i
d
a
'
W
i
n
e
&
R
o
s
e
s
'
We
i
g
e
l
a
#3
C
O
N
T
PE
R
E
N
N
I
A
L
S
82
.
CA
Ca
l
a
m
a
g
r
o
s
t
i
s
x
a
c
u
t
i
f
l
o
r
a
'
K
a
r
l
F
o
e
r
s
t
e
r
'
Fe
a
t
h
e
r
R
e
e
d
G
r
a
s
s
#2
C
O
N
T
80
RH
Ru
d
b
e
c
k
i
a
h
i
r
t
a
Bl
a
c
k
E
y
e
d
S
u
s
a
n
#2
C
O
N
T
GR
O
U
N
D
C
O
V
E
R
S
97
R
A
Rh
u
s
a
r
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
'
G
r
o
-
L
o
w
'
F
r
a
g
r
a
n
t
S
u
m
a
c
#3
C
O
N
T
VI
N
E
S
15
1
H
A
Hy
d
r
a
n
g
e
a
a
n
o
m
a
l
a
s
s
p
.
p
e
t
i
o
l
a
r
i
s
Cl
i
m
b
i
n
g
H
y
d
r
a
n
g
e
a
#3
C
O
N
T
57
P
A
R
*
Pa
r
t
h
e
n
o
c
i
s
s
u
s
t
r
i
c
u
s
p
i
d
a
t
a
'
V
e
i
t
c
h
i
i
'
Ve
i
t
c
h
i
i
B
o
s
t
o
n
I
v
y
#3
C
O
N
T
57
P
A
R
*
Pa
r
t
h
e
n
o
c
i
s
s
u
s
q
u
i
n
q
u
e
f
o
l
i
a
'
R
e
d
W
a
l
l
'
Re
d
W
a
l
l
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
C
r
e
e
p
e
r
#3
C
O
N
T
*N
O
T
E
:
P
A
R
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
S
F
O
R
A
5
0
/
5
0
B
L
E
N
D
O
F
T
H
E
T
W
O
SP
E
C
I
E
S
O
F
P
A
R
T
H
E
N
O
C
I
S
S
U
S
A
T
E
A
C
H
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
I
N
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
LE
G
E
N
D
A B C D
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
12
3
4
5
A B C D
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
12
3
4
5
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
C
2
0
1
5
IT
I
S
A
V
I
O
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
L
A
W
F
O
R
A
N
Y
PE
R
S
O
N
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
A
C
T
I
N
G
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
DI
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
T
O
A
L
T
E
R
AN
Y
I
T
E
M
O
N
T
H
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
W
H
O
AL
T
E
R
S
T
H
I
S
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
I
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
Y
L
A
W
T
O
A
F
F
I
X
H
I
S
O
R
HE
R
S
E
A
L
A
N
D
T
H
E
N
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
"A
L
T
E
R
E
D
B
Y
"
F
O
L
L
O
W
E
D
B
Y
H
I
S
O
R
HE
R
S
I
G
N
A
T
U
R
E
A
N
D
A
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
NO
T
I
C
E
:
210 HANCOCK STREET
City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
10
0
1
W
.
S
e
n
e
c
a
S
t
.
,
S
t
e
.
2
0
1
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
1
4
8
5
0
60
7
-
2
7
7
-
1
4
0
0
F
a
x
6
0
7
-
2
7
7
-
6
0
9
2
11
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
5
20
1
4
0
3
0
PJ
T
JB
P
,
J
L
F
NO
T
F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SP
R
SU
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
L4
0
1
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
DN
DN
157 SF
108
LEASE OFFICE
120 SF
107
VEST
744 SF
156
MULTIPURPOSE
ROOM
233 SF
103
ELEVATOR
LOBBY
57 SF
105
TOILET
61 SF
106
TOILET
64 SF
130
ELEV
100 SF
102
RECYC
312 SF
101
TRASH
504 SF
153
INFANT (8)
504 SF
152
WADDLER (8)
504 SF
151
TODDLER (8-10)
384 SF
154
COR/CUBBY
135 SF
157A
KITCHEN
STORAGE
254 SF
157
KITCHEN
158 SF
159
STAFF ROOM
24 SF
159B
JC/ST
272 SF
158
LOBBY
103 SF
160
MNGR OFFICE
103 SF
161
FAMILY
PARTNER
80 SF
162
VEST
69 SF
186
HS FURN
120 SF
185
COM FURN
230 SF
183
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
69 SF
182
HS FURN
337 SF
181
WATER SERVICE
& RPZ ROOM
2176 SF
180
COMMERCIAL
SPACE
70 SF
187
VEST
7717 SF
123
OPEN COVERED
PARKING
134 SF
122
MAINT/MECH
136 SF
121
BIKE STORAGE
235 SF
120
STAIR
234 SF
161
STAIR
1392 SF
121
HS PLAY AREA
(16)
36 SF
104
FURNACE
8 SF
107A
MAIL
PANELS
1/16" = 1'-0"11/16/152014055 A554210 HANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENT210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES Unnamed
1/16" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
PLANS
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
ROOF PLAN
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
TOWNHOUSE ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATION
INTERIOR STREET ELEVATIONS
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
TOWNHOUSE ELEVATIONS
SOUTH ELEVATION
LAKE AVENUE ELEVATIONS
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
View 1 - From Lake Avenue
View 2 - From Hancock Street looking down Interior “Street”
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
November 24, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
View 3 - From Corner of Hancock Street and First Street
View 4 - From First Street, mid block looking South
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
November 24, 2015
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
A B C D E F G
A B C D E F G
123
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
123
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WA
R
N
I
N
G
:
I
t
i
s
a
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Ne
w
Y
o
r
k
S
t
a
t
e
L
a
w
f
o
r
a
n
y
pe
r
s
o
n
,
u
n
l
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
,
to
a
l
t
e
r
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
n
a
n
y
w
a
y
.
If
a
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
a
l
o
f
an
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
i
s
a
l
t
e
r
e
d
,
t
h
e
al
t
e
r
i
n
g
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
a
f
f
i
x
t
o
su
c
h
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
h
i
s
s
e
a
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
no
t
a
t
i
o
n
"
a
l
t
e
r
e
d
b
y
"
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
hi
s
s
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
s
u
c
h
al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
o
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
21
7
N
o
r
t
h
A
u
r
o
r
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
It
h
a
c
a
N
Y
1
4
8
5
0
p
6
0
7
.
2
7
3
.
7
6
0
0
f
6
0
7
.
2
7
3
.
0
4
7
5
DA
T
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
OT
H
E
R
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
10
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
20
1
4
0
5
5
/
E
1
4
-
3
0
TR
T
/
D
A
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
NA
M
E
D
A
T
E
210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
210 HANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENT
100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
C1
0
0
GE
N
PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
Preliminary & Final Approval Four Multi-Family Dwellings
215-221 Spencer St.
November 24, 2015
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for
four multi-family dwellings to be located at 215-221 Spencer St., by Noah Demarest for PPM Homes (Ed Cope), and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to build a new multi-family “pocket neighborhood” on a hillside site between W.
Spencer St. and S. Cayuga St. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3
units (12 units overall). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off S. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be
organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces that connect through the site. The project also includes lighting,
retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the R-3b Zoning District and has received the required Area Variance
for parking, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or
carrying out the action, did on June 23, 2015 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with
Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on July 28, 2015, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other
interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have
been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on October 27, 2015 review and
accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and
3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings: “Survey Map, No. 215-221 W Spencer Street, City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York,” dated 2/15/12, and prepared by T.G. Miller P.C.; “Site Demo Plan and Layout Plan
(L101),” “Grading Plan and Planting Plan (L102),” ‘Site Section (L501),” and “Site Utility Plan (C102),” all dated
9/17/15; and “Perspectives (L001),” dated 8/6/15; and “Area Plans Buildings A & B (A100),” “Building A Elevations
(A201A),” “Building A Elevations (A202A),” “Building B Elevations (A201B),” “Building B Elevations (A202B),”
“Area Plans Buildings C & D (A100C),” “Building C&D Elevations (A201C),” and “Building C&D Elevations
(A202C),” dated 7/8/15 and all prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on October 27, 2015 determine that the proposed project would result in no
significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required variances on November 3, 2015, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Written approval from the City Stormwater Officer
ii. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent: Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: 0
Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850
November 19, 2015
Lisa Nicholas
Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Economic Development
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: 416-418 East State Street —Supplemental Submittal
Dear Lisa:
On behalf of the Applicant, East State LLC, enclosed please find the following documents as a supplemental package for
the review of the Planning Board for the proposed 416 East State Street Project located at 416-418 E. State Street:
1. Project Drawings
a. Revised Proposed Landscape Plan
b. Proposed Signage + Proposed Bench Detail
2. Sound Engineer Report from AVL Design, Incorporated
To compliment the revised package submitted on November 12, 2015, the additional drawings provided in this
supplemental submission describe further details about the project. These changes are in response to comments we
received from the Project Review Committee on November 17, and in response to concerns of the immediate neighbors.
The Proposed Landscape Plan includes a connection from the Argos parking lot with a stairway, a connection from the
sidewalk on East State Street, and a designated smoking area at the front of the property. A formal entrance zone has also
been created by moving the parking area 8’ away from the Main Entrance. At times, this entrance will be closed off with
a chain as indicated in the Site Plan. Further details of the landscape palette are also provided. Bench details are also
provided to describe the height of the bench, which is 4’ and in line with the loading dock.
To address concerns about noise and smoking, the lounge programming, circulation, and egress have shifted towards the
southwestern corner of the property, away from residential neighbors and towards East State Street and the Argos. Seth
Waltz, President of AVL Designs, Incorporated, was hired by the Applicant to do sound testing and develop
recommendations to mitigate any noise that would result from the lounge programming. Testing results are included.
We look forward to working with you and presenting the project at the November Planning Board meeting. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott Whitham
PLANNING BOARD - SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION: NOVEMBER 19, 2015
EAST STATE, LLC
the Printing Press
November 19, 2015
Page 2
the Printing PressIthaca, NY
35’-0”
17
’
-
8
”
35
’
-
0
”
5’-2”
27
’
-
1
1
”
UP
EVERGREEN
PLANTSFLOWERING
TREES
EXISTING
TREES
BENCH
8’4’
MAIN ENTRANCE
OFFICE / LOUNGE
SMOKING
AREA
ADA ENTRANCE
OFFICE / LOUNGE / RESIDENCE
SECONDARY ENTRANCE
OFFICE
HOUSE RULES
SIGN
CHAIN
PRINTING PRESS
SIGN
PROPOSED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - DETAIL1” = 10’-0”
November 19, 2015
Page 3
the Printing PressIthaca, NY
PROPOSED SIGNAGE + BENCH DETAIL
35’-0”
17
’
-
8
”
35
’
-
0
”
5’-2”
27
’
-
1
1
”
UP
EVERGREEN
PLANTSFLOWERING
TREES
EXISTING
TREES
BENCH
8’4’
MAIN ENTRANCE
OFFICE / LOUNGE
SMOKING
AREA
ADA ENTRANCE
OFFICE / LOUNGE / RESIDENCE
SECONDARY ENTRANCE
OFFICE
HOUSE RULES
SIGN
CHAIN
PRINTING PRESS
SIGN
2’
-
8
”
1’
-
4
”
4’
-
0
”
HIGH BACK
PLANTING
AVL Designs, Incorporated • 1788 Penfield Rd • Penfield, New York 14526 Phone (585) 586-1100 • Fax: (585) 586-1143
East State LLC,
59 Powers St. Brooklyn, Suite 1
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Mr. Benjamin Rosenblum
Mr. Avi Smith
Noise testing and Simulations
The Printing Press Site
416 E state street
Ithaca NY
11/16/15
PREFACE
A meeting with some concerned neighbors was held when we were on site testing, and we
address some of their concerns in this report.
• (The Argos Inn patio was discussed with neighbors but it is not in our scope of work to
review.)
The residential areas represented were :
State Street - Front and to the side of the venue
East Seneca Street – Behind and above the venue
Schuyler Street – To the side of the venue rear
CONCERNS
The primary concerns with the proposed venue at 416 East State Street (The Printing Press)
were discussed as the following:
Item 1 Potential Noise emanation from the building interior – noise from patrons,
program music, and live music.
Item 2 Potential Noise from an Outdoor smoking area
Item 3 Noise from traffic and the parking area shared with the Argos Inn.
REFERENCE NOISE CODE
• Summary - The City of Ithaca Noise Code references maximum levels of 50 dBA in the
evening hours. The code also states that unaided speech should be inaudible at 100
Feet, with exception for spontaneous laughter.
COMMENTS
• While 50 dBA is a reasonable number for a residential adjacency it should be noted that
50 dBA is a numerical reference level and does not relate to audibility.
• Any sound music, speech, wildlife etc…) can be clearly audible at levels below 50 dBA
even in the presence of 50 dBA traffic noise. During tests crickets were clearly audible
above 55 dBA plus traffic but their contribution to the tested level is nil. They can be
heard because of their distinctive sound
AVL Designs, Incorporated • 1788 Penfield Rd • Penfield, New York 14526 Phone (585) 586-1100 • Fax: (585) 586-1143
EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE
At all test locations around the venue average traffic noise ranged from a low of 48 dBA to a high
of 75 dBA. The 48 dBA low was recorded with no traffic on East State Street.
These tests encompass a Friday and Monday night up until 10:00 PM
Notes:
• No noise from the Argos was evident in any of these tests.
• Approximately 10 People were on the patio at the Argos during these tests, but speech
when audible did not affect the background levels being recorded. This data represents
average background traffic noise in the area taken on the night of the tests.
TESTING INTENT
• Our testing is primarily intended to address the noise code as written. We feel however
that due diligence would require we comment on what we suspect neighbors would
want, which is not to hear sounds added that are not already present in the area.
There is significant traffic noise in the area, quite a bit of foot traffic and speech from
students coming down the hill towards the commons, as well as local wildlife sounds
( Birds crickets etc…)
TESTING METHODS
• Our testing included averaged noise dBA levels as well as a logging system. Our logging
data recorder records date, time, location, noise level, frequency content in 1/3 Octave,
and an audio file simultaneously. This allows us to play back the data and hear what was
included in the data at any point in the test and to review the tested level at the same
time. (This data can only be played from within the analyzer software.)
SITE TEST LOCATIONS – SEE ATTACHED TEST MAP
• Note – Some locations were dropped once we were on site because they did not make
sense acoustically once we had tested some other sites. The sites left in the testing plan
satisfy the testing needs to assess the Printing press Location.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
So
u
n
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
L
e
v
e
l
i
n
d
B
Frequency
In
Hz
Traf:ic
Noise
BackgroundTests
Site
G
-‐1
-‐
55dBA
Site
G-‐2
56.9
dBA
Site
G
3
59.1
dBA
Site
G
50.3dBA
Site
D
1
46.6
dBA
Site
D
2
52
dBA
Site
E
54.1
dBA
Site
B
52,4
dBA
Site
B
62.5
dBA
Site
C
1
75.1
dBA
Site
C
2
48.8
dBA
AVL Designs, Incorporated • 1788 Penfield Rd • Penfield, New York 14526 Phone (585) 586-1100 • Fax: (585) 586-1143
PROGRAMMATIC USE SIMULATION
Item 1 Interior Emanation Potential
A simulation was performed inside the venue of a live Salsa Band (Very Loud 102 dBC SPL)
which was performed with a high power sound system. During this test there was no audible
music observed at Site G, D, or C. At site B there was low level audible music content, but only
heard when traffic fell below 55 dBA.
• Due to the traffic noise we can’t assign a specific dBA number of the music heard as it
was not the predominant source. The dBA numbers noted are what was recorded, but
includes traffic noise. Average traffic noise was taken off the logging recorder.
When the music was audible the measured SPL in the parking area was 44.9dBA.
o While the existing building condition satisfies the code with music at this level, our
opinion is that later at night the lulls in traffic noise will allow the presence of audible
music could offend neighbors on East Seneca.
We also tested with other musical styles more in line with what the venue owners intend for the
space in terms of background music and possible live music. When vocal music was present
even at lower levels it was more noticeable because it includes human voice.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
25
40
63
10
0
16
0
25
0
40
0
63
0
10
0
0
16
0
0
25
0
0
40
0
0
63
0
0
10
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
So
u
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
L
e
v
e
l
i
n
d
B
Frequency
In
Hz
Samba
Band
Samba
Source
102
dBC
Samba
Site
B
52.9
dBA
Samba
Site
D
48
dBA
Average
TrafEic
55dBA
AVL Designs, Incorporated • 1788 Penfield Rd • Penfield, New York 14526 Phone (585) 586-1100 • Fax: (585) 586-1143
During this test the vocal region ( 250 – 2000 Hz) was audible even with the 40.8 dBA traffic
background.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Our recommendations are made based on the assumption that background noise will
likely fall below 40 dBA after 1 AM.
Base Recommendations – General Use No Live Music
• The windows all are in need of glazing repair just for thermal reasons. They also need
acoustical seals on their center opening portions. The window system tested at ASTC 20
which is low for glass, and is caused by air leaks in the glazing systems.
o Any live music use requires the ASTC of the windows to be raised to
approximately 36.
• The door at the rear opening into the parking area needs to have acoustical seals added.
• While no noise output was noticed form the roof it is prudent to close off roof vents and
accesses, and all interior gaps in construction around roof drains etc.…..
• The existing interior ceiling needs to be maintained in place. Opening up the ceiling could
increase sound leakage to an audible level.
• The roof also needs to be maintained in kind, as it is providing a high STC barrier. We
suspect it has gyp, concrete or ballast in the existing construction.
OPTIONS AND LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS
If no changes are made to the building envelope it could still be used for the intended purpose but
with no live music and well controlled lower background music levels.
PROGRAMMED BACKGROUND MUSIC
• In the current conditions the levels inside the venue need to be held below 80 dB
SPL Unweighted measured 10 feet away from the inside surface of the windows.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
25
40
63
10
0
16
0
25
0
40
0
63
0
10
0
0
16
0
0
25
0
0
40
0
0
63
0
0
10
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
So
u
n
d
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
d
B
Frequency
In
Hz
Vocal
Band
Test
Data
Vocal
Source
Inside
Bldg
93
dBC
Vocal
Rcv
Site
B
51
dBA
Lull
In
TrafEic
BkGnd
40.8dBA
!
!
MEMORANDUM!OF!UNDERSTANDING!
This%MEMORANDUM%OF%UNDERSTANDING%(hereinafter%referred%to%as%this%“MOU”),%is%made%this%_2nd____%
day%of%____October_________,%2015__%by%Unity%Inn%LLC%(dba%Argos%Inn),%a%New%York%State%limited%liability%
company,%with%offices%at%408%East%State,%Ithaca,%NY%14850%and%East!State!LLC,%a%New%York%State%limited%
liability%company%located%at%416S418%East%State%Street,%Ithaca,%NY%14850.%
%%
%WHEREAS,%Unity%Inn,%LLC%is%the%owner%in%fee%simple%absolute%of%certain%real%property%located%in%the%
City%of%Ithaca,%County%of%Tompkins%and%State%of%New%York,%known%as%408%East%State%Street,%City%of%Ithaca,%
State%of%New%York,%Tax%Map%Parcel%69.S2S19%(“The!Parking!Lot”);%and%
%WHEREAS,%East!State!LLC%is%the%owner%in%fee%simple%absolute%of%certain%real%property%located%in%the%
City%of%Ithaca,%County%of%Tompkins%and%State%of%New%York,%known%as%416S418%East%State%Street,%City%of%
Ithaca,%State%of%New%York,%Tax%Map%Parcel%69.S2S18%(“The!Printing!Press!Lounge!and!Office!Site”);%and%%
%WHEREAS,%The%East!State!LLC%lounge%needs%to%provide__16___%parking%spaces%for%its%patrons%with%
reasonable%access%to%the%site;%and%East!State!LLC!wishes%to%enter%into%a%lease%with%Unity%Inn%LLC%for%parking%
spaces%within%The%Parking%Lot;%and%%
WHEREAS,%The%East!State!LLC%Office%needs%to%provide%__16___%parking%spaces%for%its%patrons%with%
reasonable%access%to%the%site;%and%East!State!LLC!wishes%to%enter%into%a%lease%with%GPA%for%parking%spaces%
within%The%Parking%Lot.%
%NOW,%THEREFORE,%in%consideration%of%the%mutual%covenants%and%agreements%herein%contained,%the%
parties%to%this%Agreement,%for%themselves%and%for%their%successors%and/or%assigns,%hereby%agree%as%follows:%
Operating%hours%for%shared%parking:%
8:00%AM%to%4:00%PM%%416S418%East%State%Street%Office%Parking%
4:00%PM%to%9:00%PM%%Argos%Inn%Bar%Parking%
9:00%PM%to%1:30%AM%416S418%East%State%Street%Bar%and%Lounge%Parking%
See%attached%Appendix%A%and%Appendix%B.%%
%
1. Unity%Inn,%LLC%(Argos%Inn)%intends%to%offer%up%to%16%parking%spaces%for%the%use%of%the%Lounge%at%a%
rental%rate%of%$50/month%per%space.%
2. The%Lounge%shall%only%have%the%use%of%the%spaces%from%9%PM%to%1:30%AM.%
3. The%Lounge%shall%be%responsible%for%any%towing%required%to%free%up%the%rental%parking%spaces%during%
business%hours.%
4. Unity%Inn,%LLC%intends%to%offer%up%to%16%parking%spaces%for%the%use%of%the%Office%at%a%rental%rate%of%
$50/month%per%space.%
5. The%Office%shall%only%have%the%use%of%the%spaces%from%8:00%AM%to%4:00%PM.%
6. The%Office%shall%be%responsible%for%any%towing%required%to%free%up%the%rental%parking%spaces%during%
business%hours.%
APPENDIX(A:(Shared(Parking,(Argos(Inn((408(E.(State)(and(Printing(Press((416(E.(State)(
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!((
Use(Types:(Argos(Inn(and(Printing(Press(
(
(
(
!!!
Shared(Parking(Diagram:(Argos(Inn(and(Printing(Press.((
Note:&Color&of&parking&corresponds&to&color&of&use&type.&&
&
&
&
&
&
APPENDIX(B:(Argos(Inn(Parking,(Building(Department(Records(
&
&
&
&
&
&
Page 1 of 3
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM ― Part III
Project Name: Site Improvements ― 416 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd.
Date Created: 9/2/15, updated on 10‐13‐15, 11‐12‐15 and 11/17/15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and
renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations
include construction of two new building entrances, one of which will have a stair connecting the
back entrance to the adjacent parking area, realignment of the curbing to provide better
maneuverability in the 2‐car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new
bar, office spaces, and apartment require 32 off‐street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing
shared parking with the adjacent Argos Inn. The project is in the B‐4 Zoning District and the East Hill
Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and has received a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a
Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176‐4
(h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11).
IMPACT ON LAND
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON WATER
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
The proposed project is in the East Hill Historic District and has received a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the ILPC. The original project proposed a circular drive and an additional curb
cut, however the applicant has removed these aspects of the project due to ILPC concerns.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
Page 2 of 3
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
The originally proposed circular drive has been removed due to ILPC concerns.
The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 29 off‐street parking spaces. There are two on‐
site parking spaces proposed. Originally, the applicant proposed to provide the required spaces at
Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416‐418 E. State Street, under a shared parking agreement.
Although the proposed location conformed to the requirement that off‐site parking be located no
more than 500 feet from site, concerns were expressed about the safety of this location.
In a memorandum, dated July 17, 2015, from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
to Charles Pyott, City of Ithaca Office Assistant, the County made the following recommendation:
We recommend disapproval of the variance because the proposed project would
encourage pedestrian crossing of State Street in an area that presents a significant
potential pedestrian risk. We also note that the proposed on‐site parking could encourage,
if not require, backing onto State Street in an area with very heavy traffic. This should be
avoided. Together, these two factors would pose a safety concern on this busy State
highway route.
In response to these concerns, the applicant has arranged to provide the required spaces at 408 E.
State Street, immediately adjacent to the property. The applicant has submitted a fully executed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 10‐2‐15 between the owners of 416 and 408 E State
Street that dictates the operating hours for shared parking. With the MOU in place, the Lead Agency
is satisfied that the shared parking arrangement will operate as planned. The applicant has also
redesigned the on‐site parking to include a turnaround space so that backing onto State Street is not
necessary.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
The Lead Agency has concerns about potential impacts from noise and odors on the surrounding
residential neighbors resulting in the conversion of the ground‐floor space into a bar and music
venue with planned operating hours of 9 pm to 1 am. These concerns stem primarily from two
factors. First, traveling noise from live music could be bothersome both as it emanates through the
walls, roof and windows of the building and as it escapes as patrons open and close doors to enter
and exit. Secondly, noise and odors could be bothersome as patrons gather outside the building to
smoke and converse. Adjacent residents and property owners expressed similar concerns.
The originally proposed design included the following elements that informed this concern
An entrance at the rear of the building (close to the uphill residents on Seneca Street) that
included a deck large enough for a small gathering,
Operable garage‐type doors to be installed on the west façade of the building facing the
adjacent Argos Inn
A designated outdoor smoking area at the east property line – close to the residential
neighbors on E. State Street.
Page 3 of 3
In response to the Lead Agency’s concerns about noise having a negative impact on neighbors, the
applicant redesigned the project in the following ways:
Relocated the bar to the center of the building
Removed the rear entrance (to the bar) and deck
Removed the operable garage doors
Created pedestrian connections to the main entrance of the bar at the south west corner of
the property thus keeping entering and exiting as far as possible from residential neighbors
Provided a designated outdoor smoking area at the southwest corner of the building that is
enclosed on two sides by the building
Provided landscape plantings that create both physical barriers to outdoor gathering and
movements as well as a visual screen
In addition, the applicant agreed to engage an Acoustical Consultant to ensure that the intended
uses of the site would adhere to the City’s Noise Ordinance. The applicant submitted the results of
this noise testing and simulations in a letter dated 11/16/15 and prepared by Seth E. Walth,
President of AVL Design Incorporated. The study recommended mitigations for live music involving
the building itself, including acoustically sealing windows and doors, closing off vents on the roof
and maintaining the exiting interior ceiling system as well as the roof. The report also
recommended sound monitoring.
The Lead agency is requiring, and the applicant has agreed, to implement the recommendations of
the study, including the installation of a sealed interior glazing with a trapped air space to the
interior of the windows.
The Lead Agency finds that the applicant has made revisions to the project that mitigate the
potential impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Any future changes to the site plan will
potentially require further environmental review.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The project requires Area Variances for existing deficiencies. In order to convert the unoccupied
space on the first floor to the new permitted uses, the applicant must obtain variances for existing
deficiencies. The property at 416‐418 East State Street has existing deficiencies pertaining to lot
coverage, side yard, and other side yard setbacks. Percentage of lot coverage is 60%; allowed is
50%. The building also is deficient in side yard and other side yard setbacks. The side yard to the
west of the building is 0.02 feet; required is 10 feet. The other side yard to the east of the building is
0.1 feet; required is 5 feet.
The Lead Agency has concerns about potential impacts on the surrounding residential neighbors
resulting in the conversion of the ground‐floor space into a bar and music venue. See Impacts from
Noise and Odors. No impact anticipated.
Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner
PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
CEQR — Negative Declaration Site Improvements
Site Plan Review
416 E. State St./M.L.K., Jr. Blvd.
November 24, 2015
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for building and site improvements to be located at 416 E. State St./M.L.K., Jr. Blvd., and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to convert a portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand
and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations
include construction of two new building entrances, one of which will have a stair connecting the back
entrance to the adjacent parking area, realignment of the curbing to provide better maneuverability in the 2-
car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment
require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing shared parking with the adjacent Argos Inn.
The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for
existing area deficiencies and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC), and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”), §176-4 (h) [4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (11), and
is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility
for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on October 27, 2015 declare itself the Lead Agency
for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on October 27, 2015
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings: “Existing Lot Coverage
and Proposed Site Plan,” “Argos Inn + Printing Press: Use Types and Shared Parking,” “Proposed Floor
Plans,” and “Existing-Proposed Elevations,” all dated 10/27/15 with no attribution; and other application
materials, and
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will
result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent: Jones Rounds
Vacancies: 0
Matthew Clark
419 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
November 16, 2015
To: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
City of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Regarding: 416-418 E. Seneca St. Development
Dear Board members,
You have presumably read my previous letters concerning the proposed bar at 416-418 E.
Seneca St. My main opposition is that our house and family are already dealing with the
nuisance introduced by the Argos Inn and their outdoor amphitheater and patio, and
now a new business aligned with the Argos is proposing to create a drinking and musical
establishment that will be open until 1am. This is outrageous and unthinkable to us.
Since the proposed 416-418 E. State Street bar/nightclub will have a relationship with
the Argos, this letter will not only challenge the proposed bar but will challenge the
outdoor amphitheater which was constructed and is now used without proper approval.
1.Parking requirement based on interior of building
The zoning rules for City of Ithaca zoning area B4 state that
for a bar or tavern, one parking space per 50 SF net floor area
is required.
Here is the first floor of the Argos Inn based on plans on file in
the City of Ithaca building department. The estimate of the
bar area plus the three-sided glass room is about 1400 square
feet, which means that 28 parking spaces are required on top of
the 14 spaces that are reserved for Inn hotel patrons. Even if the estimate is off by a few
feet, this is in violation of the current City of Ithaca zoning code.
This next image is from the proposal of the 416-418 plans presented
to the planning board on October 27, 2015. In this image it is
declared what space on their first floor is part of the Argos bar area.
The green area is about one-half of the first floor area, which is
listed as 3240 square feet in the plans in the earlier document. Again
a rough estimate of 1600 sq. feet would require 32 parking spaces
solely for the Argos bar (plus the spaces for the hotel guests and
apartment tenant).
Page " of "1 5
Why was there neither a site review nor a BZA process about the Argos parking
deficiency? Both the city and the owners must be held accountable to this oversight before
any arrangement for 416-418 parking can be considered; frankly the Argos doesn’t even
have parking for its own guests.
2.Parking requirement based on entire venue
Many patrons of the Argos drink, eat, and utilize the outdoor tables and chairs (which is
the biggest source of noise and smoke nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood
including my residence). Therefore these areas must be considered part of the Argos bar
venue, especially since the bar staff maintains the tables. If the Argos owners claim that
the patio is not part of the bar area, then alcohol may not be carried by patrons to these
outside tables.
The number of seats and tables in the outside bar area dwarfs the interior venue area,
allowing huge crowds to gather especially on weekends and “food truck” nights. These
noisy crowds are disruptive and of course many patrons need to park, but the number of
on-site parking spaces is just too limited for the number of guests.
The rough estimate for the outdoor patio area is 2,200 square feet. This means that
another 44 parking spaces are required for patrons.
The owners cannot have it both ways - either they ban alcohol from the outdoor patio
areas or they must provide 44 more parking spaces on top of the parking spaces required
for the interior part of the bar and the hotel guests.
3.Shared parking arrangement
The 416-418 project proposes shared parking with the Argos to cover their parking
deficiencies.
Section 325-20 of the City of Ithaca code has the following statement regarding shared
parking:
Shared parking
In a case where two or more establishments on the same lot, or on lots meeting the distance requirements
found in § 325-20D(4)(d) of this section, have substantially different operating times, the Director of
Planning and Development or designee (or, in the case of a project subject to site development plan review,
the Planning and Development Board) may approve the joint use of parking spaces, provided that the
Director of Planning and Development or designee or the Board or their designee finds that the intent of the
requirements of § 325-20 is fulfilled by reason of variation in the probable time of maximum use by
patrons and employees among such establishments.
Page " of "2 5
It is a stretch to claim that the Argos and proposed 416-418 E. State Street will have
substantially different operating times. Claiming that the Argos will shut promptly at 9pm
and the 416-418 establishment open one minute later conforms to neither the letter nor
the spirit of the shared parking arrangement.
Although the Argos already claims that their bar closes at 10pm, my wife and I constantly
hear patrons at the outdoor tables continue their conversations and drinking until
10:45pm and even later on weekends.
The only solution is to have a clear “substantially different operating time” that provides
for the last call and departure of the patrons. I would think two hours would suffice.
This “substantially different” arrangement also applies to the commercial offices currently
located within the 416-418 E. State Street building, which presumably will have to be
fully closed “substantially” before the Argos bar opens at 5pm. This is based on the stated
arrangement by the shared parking agreement.
4. Noise ordinance
My backyard is directly adjacent to the Argos outdoor amphitheater and patio. Patrons at
the outdoor part of the Argos create a noise nuisance that is detrimental to our family
and property.
Imagine scenes like of the adjacent image showing an
outdoor event at the Argos, which occurred in 2014
mere feet from my property line. Calls to both the
Argos and the police were met with a response that the
crowd noise was allowed since a noise permit was issued
by the City of Ithaca mayor’s office. One of these permit-protected social events lasted
seven hours, and was audible even from the front of my house.
A few days ago, a measurement was taken of the distance from my 2nd-floor bedroom
window to the patio area in the presence of the Argos and 416-418 owners, and the
distance is in excess of 140 feet. My wife and I can clearly hear audible conversations
every warm evening when the Argos patrons sit outside, even if it is just a handful of
people.
The City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance has the following rule (240-9):
Unamplified human voice.
No person shall make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any unreasonable noise by use of the
unamplified human voice. The unamplified human voice engaged at conversational levels shall be exempt
from this provision if such sound is not plainly audible beyond 100 feet or does not infringe on the
legitimate rights of others.
Page " of "3 5
Since my back deck, kitchen, and bedroom are officially beyond 100 feet from the source
of the noise, my rights are infringed by the Argos constantly. Both the Argos and the
police have been called on more than one occasion due to the bar crowd noises, and
henceforth I will invoke rule 240-9 and demand a citation be issued since the
conversations from the Argos are “plainly audible” and infringe upon my legitimate
rights.
5.Noise engineering report
I have no doubt that the noise engineer hired by the 416-418 owner will offer suggestions
of how to reduce the noise impact of noise generated from within the confines of the
416-418 building.
However the biggest nuisance to me is the constant outside crowd noise, and by the
engineer’s own verbal admission this is almost impossible reduce even with noise barriers.
Another observation I have is that even if more than the existing single-pane glass is
installed, windows and doors will be propped open during the warm evenings, obviating
any effect of double-paned glass or window curtains. Although I haven’t yet received a
copy of the sound report, its purpose is ineffective if it does not address the biggest
nuisance of outdoor crowd noises.
6.Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals directives
Historically the 416-418 building has had light industry (printing), apartment dwellers,
and commercial offices. None of these activities drastically interfere with the immediately
surrounding neighborhood within the Historic District which is overwhelmingly
residential. Use of the 416-418 building for these purposes certainly has my approval
since they do not create nuisances.
The charter of the Ithaca Planning board is to determine appropriateness of
development. Section 276-1 of the City of Ithaca code states that the neighborhood
character must be preserved and enhanced. When an outdoor bar is permitted that both
violates zoning rules and infringes on neighbors such as myself, the board is derelict in its
lawful duty.
Other directives that promote the same conclusion are to “achieve compatibility with
adjacent development and uses” and improving the “aesthetic quality of the city”. When
not a single adjacent residential homeowner is in favor of granting the zoning variances
to allow a bar, that is a strong message to the planning and BZA boards.
Regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals board, variances should be granted only if the
variance “will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and … the alleged
Page " of "4 5
hardship has not been self-created.” Again I argue that the 416-418 requested variances
are out of character both historically and currently.
6.Dismissal of any hardship claims
Documents on file in the City of Ithaca building department state that serious zoning
deficiencies pre-existed and the new owner was aware of these prior to the purchase.
Although a bar is legally allowed in the B4 zoning district, it is not “as right” because of
the huge code deficiencies including parking.
Thus there is no hardship claim to grant the zoning variances.
Summary
My family and I have lived in the Lower East Hill Historic District neighborhood for 19
years. These last two years have been the absolute worst due to the introduction of the
Argos outdoor amphitheater and patio. We demand relief, and adding another adjacent
bar that has noisy guests until 1am is unacceptable.
Based on the above information, I have two requests: immediately ban all Argos guests
from patronizing the outdoor patio area; deny a certificate of appropriateness and any
request for zoning variance for 416-418.
My neighbors and I have been advised that Article 78 proceedings can only be filed in
response to official government declaration or rulings, so I am asking that a formal
declaration of the Argos patio and parking also be addressed, since it is not in
compliance.
Sincerely,
Matthew Clark
419 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Page " of "5 5
November 17, 2015
Re: 416-418 E. State St.
To the Planning Board:
As you know, as one of the owners of the building that sits five feet to the east of the 416-418 building, I have been
following the development of their proposal closely. I believe the development of 416 into a fully-utilized and
renovated structure is a good thing. With this in mind, I have tried to generate ideas that would mitigate some of the
issues of having a bar at 416. This summer at a meeting with Ben and Avi (a meeting that was put in motion thanks
to the planning board), my wife and I were the first to propose to Ben and Avi looking into a smoking room inside
the building to decrease the loitering and thus outside conversations at 1 am. (As you know, this idea did not work
out because of state laws.) Since then I have generated several ideas to help mitigate the noise and parking concerns,
including approaching the bar from the west side. I appreciate the Planning Board’s work in trying to mitigate the
environmental impact from the project.
From my perspective, trying to improve the project and work with Ben and Avi was generous because even with
improvement, the bar project is simply not suited to this historic neighborhood for a number of environmental
reasons as well as its changes to the character of the historic neighborhood.
NOISE: New information based on sound engineer’s consultation
General:
As neighbors had previously asserted, the sound engineer acknowledged that there are unavoidable gatherings
outside of bars, especially after the indoor clean-air act was passed in 2003, and that what potentially disturbs
neighbors more than background noise is the human voice. The engineer told us at the public meeting that speech is
distinctly audible even when it does not appreciably change the decibel level. On the night he measured, November
6, there were seven people speaking on the Argos patio at 9 pm. These people added roughly only a 3-decibel
change to the background noise, by the engineer’s measurement. Yet the engineer noted that the seven voices were
distinctly audible, and Matt reported hearing them clearly and was able to make out the individual conversations
from inside his house. According to the engineer, this was because the brain pays particular attention to sound in the
voice frequency and voices in particular. Apparently during the better weather many more people are outside talking
in the parking lot and patio areas. In addition, people lingering in the parking lot while leaving the bar are often
speaking in the raised voices of the inebriated. Continuing this situation into the small hours of the morning would
clearly be a significant worsening of the situation for the residents of this neighborhood, and a further significant
downgrading of the character of this historic community.
Noise problems SPECIFIC to this location:
The sound engineer addressed with neighbors a set of characteristics that are in force in this particular location that
make this exterior noise more troubling than it might be in another district.
A. The historic windows such as the double-hung windows on our house at 420 E. State (even with storm windows)
do not block the sound anything close to what modern windows on typical apartment buildings do, as might be
found in a modern, mixed-use district.
B. The historic houses on E. Seneca sit on a hill above the patio and parking lot, creating a “temperature inversion”
leading to an amplification effect, such that the voices particularly carry there more than if the houses were the
same distance away but on a level with the bar. This geography is particular to this site.
C. He talked about sound attenuating with distance. He did not focus on 416-418 being significantly closer to 420
than current zoning regulation allows (with less than five feet between the building footprints)—but this too
would clearly make placing a bar at 416-418 more noxious than a bar placed in a typical business district.
PARKING
In addition to noise issues, parking would change the character of the neighborhood and bring noisy people well
beyond the 416-418 property and into the neighborhood past 1 am most nights. How the neighborhood stands
currently, there are parking permits required during the day on E. Seneca and Schuyler. In speaking to my alderman,
I learned that this parking designation was obtained years ago in order to protect the neighborhood's character as
residential and quiet, as opposed to downtown commercial. (I learned that such designation had been hard to obtain,
cutting through red tape in Albany. A new designation, such as extending the restriction past 5 pm would be difficult
if not impossible to achieve). The permits were originally set until 5 pm because this is when the bulk of the
downtown traffic occurred. Already there is some traffic on Schuyler due to the Argos bar after 5 pm (as evidenced
by Yelp reviews and by the collection of trash that appears in Schuyler neighbors’ yards on Food Truck nights).
Parking in this neighborhood is likely to increase as outlined below and permanently change the quiet character of
the neighborhood as bar patrons talk and go to their cars at 1:30 in the morning.
Problems with Parking:
As others have stated, the parking is already an issue for neighbors. But in addition, the project as evolving creates
even more parking problems.
1. Avi is adding four more hotel rooms that will require additional spots in the lot.
2. The food trucks are not allotted for and bring significant traffic to the lot for much of the year.
3. The office space at 416-418 is not sufficiently allotted for. They seem to be double-counting the spots based on
the theory that office workers will use the spaces during the day and bar patrons will use the spaces in the evening.
However, the Argos bar opens for happy hour at 4 pm and it is difficult to imagine an office where all the workers
have left for the day by that time.
4. The two bars are using the same spaces. Their closing/opening times mesh, but there is no accounting for
lingerers from the Argos bar who will be enjoying the patio (which has remained open after the bar closing time)
while retaining their spaces (perhaps waiting to sober up before driving away). As a matter of public safety, we
should not be chasing them out of their parking spaces too soon.
5. Currently, hotel guests may be out for the evening when Argos bar is open, leaving those extra spaces to take
pressure off having enough parking for the bar. These guests are more likely to be in their rooms at midnight, when
the new bar is in full swing, meaning that there will be no wiggle room for inadequate parking at the bar. Ironically,
the more successful the bar, the more burden to this particular neighborhood.
6. Currently, the two bars are a joint project of one team, hence the shared parking etc. However, in future one or
the other may be sold independently and the board should consider the consequences of competing bars. A future
bar owner at 416 might well plead a hardship for inability to provide parking, putting the zoning and/or planning
board in the unpleasant position of letting a business fail versus burdening a historic residential neighborhood with
an untenable situation.
Conclusion:
I agree that a vibrant nightlife is important to a small city. However, we have multiple options of where to allow
these nightspots to be and the planning board should reject a request to put a bar on a compromised parcel that would
put other objectives in jeopardy. Affordable housing options are vital to our city, as is the preservation of historic
neighborhoods. We, the owners of 420, have put thousands of hours of sweat equity and love into restoring the
house to make a safe, comfortable, beautiful but affordable housing cooperative for a group of young moderate-
income professionals. Likewise our neighbors on Seneca and Schuyler have worked hard to restore their Victorians,
many of which are owner-occupied. I feel strongly that the best plan is not to force a bar into a too-small space with
woefully insufficient parking onsite and in inappropriate proximity to a historic neighborhood full of sound-leaky
gems sitting above. The environmental factors of noise and spillover parking would both disturb uniquely vulnerable
neighbors and cause a deterioration of the character of this historic residential community.
Thank you.
David Halpert
To: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
Date: November 15, 2015
Re: 416-18 E State Street
To the members of the Board:
My husband and I own our home at 417 E Seneca Street in the East Hill Historic District, behind
the Bar Argos and 416-418 E State Street. The attached map shows that every homeowner presently
occupying their property on this block opposes the proposed development at 416-18. These
objections are not the isolated concerns of a few residents, but the unified voice of the entire
neighborhood. The only homeowner who has not joined the opposition to a bar/nightclub at 416-
18 only bought the home at 423 E Seneca earlier this year, and — as far as we can tell — knows
nothing about the proposed development; they have not yet moved into the property.
PARKING
The parking proposal for the 416-18 is inadequate because the Bar Argos is noncompliant with the
City code on parking; put simply, the Argos does not have sufficient parking for itself, let alone
enough to share with somebody else. They calculated their required number of parking spots based
on 775 sf of assembly space inside. Any cursory calculation of the interior net floor area reveals a
much larger number—I calculate something on the order of 1400 sf, based on the measurements
provided on page 11 of the presentation PDF from October 27, 2015.
Here is how they divide their space in the proposal:
And here are the actual measurements:
…. and converted into rough figures:
With 1,400 square feet, Bar Argos alone requires 28 spaces, not 15. Moreover—and this is the
important addition—they never included their outdoor seating areas in their calculations, which
(again based on the measurements from page 11 of the October 27, 2015 presentation) would add
2200 sf to their assembly area—requiring 44 more parking spaces—during the summer months
when patrons consume alcohol at the patio tables. In other words, when the patios are open, the Bar
Argos and Argos Inn require 86 spaces (14 for the Inn, 72 for the Bar) to comply with the off-street
parking ordinance (§325-20), but the lot only contains about 30 spaces for both the Bar and Inn.
One of the responsibilities of the Planning and Development Board is to “mitigate potentially
negative impacts on parking,” and if that doesn’t mean enforcing City of Ithaca code for the parking
lot of 408, then it certainly means not allowing 416-18 to benefit from 408’s noncompliance. Some
regulatory body of the City of Ithaca must actually perform the business of regulation here, and this
Board is the obvious place to start.
Nor does the 416-18 proposal comply with the city ordinance on shared parking (§325-20 D3f),
which states that the two establishments (ie, Bar Argos and 416-18) must have “substantially
different operating times.” In the current proposal submitted by the owner, the parking changes
over at 9:00 pm, when the Bar Argos will close and the new place will open. Such a time difference
would not be substantial, but minimal—it is the minimum required to be different at all. Furthermore,
the proposal suggests that the businesses at 416-18 would close promptly at 4:00 pm, when their
spots would transfer to the Bar Argos. As we have already seen, the Bar Argos requires far more
spaces than it currently possesses; but even if this weren’t the case, the Bar and the businesses of
416-18 also do not share “substantially different operating times,” and the businesses of 416-18
would have to finish business at the very early hour of 4:00 pm—do you honestly think they will do
so? And how would the arrangement be enforced?
This deficient parking plan will push patrons of both establishments to park around the corner on
Schuyler and Seneca; as we have already noted at great length in previous letters, late-night patrons
will be disruptive to neighbors when they return to their cars at 1:00 am.
NOISE AND SMOKE
As sound engineer Seth Waltz pointed out, external noise will always be a problem, one that cannot
be mitigated with walls, plantings, or any other means. At present, unamplified conversational voices
from the Argos outdoor areas are plainly audible at distances greater than 100 feet, in violation of
the City noise ordinance passed within the last year (§240-9.A1). When Ben Rosenblum invited
neighbors to contribute questions for the sound engineer last week, we asked Seth to explain how
408 and 416-18 could eliminate the plainly audible voices that reach our house in the summer
months. Unable to attend the meeting, we did not receive a reply via email (as we had requested);
other neighbors who did attend report that he flatly ruled out the possibility of external noise
abatement, given the steep incline and elevated position of every surrounding residence.
Furthermore, the food trucks that do business in the deficient lot that 408 proposes to share with
416-18 create problems that Avi and Ben have not acknowledged. Will the trucks close with the Bar
Argos at 9:00 pm, or will they stay open later to serve patrons at 416-418? And where will those
patrons consume their kale grilled cheese sandwiches? Outside, of course, where they will contribute
to these persistent and pernicious noise problems.
The smokers at both bars would also create insoluble nuisances. If the smoking area is put in the
north end of the lot, neighbors up the hill will be adversely affected. If the smoking area is placed
south of the Argos, neighbors along State Street will likewise be adversely affected. There is simply
no solution here that would not infringe on the rights of adjacent property owners.
Among your responsibilities as members of the Planning and Development Board is the
preservation of the historical character of the neighborhood. Until the Bar Argos went in a few years
ago, this block never included bars or nightclubs; historically, it supported light manufacturing and
daytime businesses. If you approve this proposal for 416-18—in spite of its violations of the City’s
off-street parking ordinance and against the outspoken, continuous, and reasonable objections of all
nearby residents—then you will have established the grounds for the wholesale destruction of the
East Hill Historic District, which will be squeezed between the usual partygoers in Collegetown and
the new ones who are set to move into Campus Advantage’s 540-unit building in the State Street
triangle only 300 feet down the street from 416-18. Those students already have the bars on Aurora
Street, at nearby Ithaca Coffee Roasters, and at Bar Argos (in the interior spaces, which are fine with
us)—they do not need another one that will creep up the hill, damage the property values of
neighboring homeowners, and contribute nothing but noise, smoke, and trash. The late-night bar at
416-18 will eventually push out homeowners on the block, only to be replaced with more student
housing on what has always been a quiet block for families and older residents of Ithaca. The city
will be left with one great Collegetown, stretching from campus to the Commons.
We are strongly opposed to this plan because of the severe noise problems that will be exacerbated
by the topology of the surrounding area, and because of the inadequate parking plan that has been
attempted by the developers. We urge you to carry out your duty to preserve the historical character
of our neighborhood and mitigate negative environmental impacts by rejecting this proposal.
Yours sincerely,
Ann Lewandowski
417 E Seneca Street
(see over for map)
Opposed to bar at 416-18 E State:
1. Lantz
2. Lewandowski / Piekut
3. Augusta / Clark
4. Olny
5. Olny
6. Achenbach / Schill
7. Halpert / Khanna / Rosario
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
Re: 416-18 E State Street
November 15, 2015
To the members of the Board:
I have written several times in past months to express my concern and opposition to the proposed
bar at 416-18 East State Street. The owners of 408 and 416-18 E State have a close personal and
business relationship. As the “pressure valve” for the Bar Argos, Ben Rosenblum’s proposed bar at
416-18 will benefit from the clientele that Avi Smith has built up next door. At the same time,
however, Ben will inherit the existing problems of Bar Argos, since the latest plans join the two
establishments so intimately (at 9:00 pm, they propose, all the patrons of 408 will apparently finish
their drinks, go move their cars, and continue the evening at 416-18).
Gino Leonardi, Ithaca’s Housing and Land Use Supervisor, granted the Argos Inn an exemption
from a full site review in April 2011, because a hotel and bar were permitted in the B-4 zone and
because the relevant ordinance includes the following exemption: “Exterior modifications to an
existing single-lot residential development of a single-family detached or semidetached dwelling or a
two-family dwelling, including additions, porches, façade changes, landscaping and site
improvements, excluding the development of parking areas for 3 or more cars as required under
§325-20.”
To this reader, it strains credulity to call the Argos Inn/Bar Argos a “single-family dwelling,” given
that its previous occupant, Unity House, was a boarding house associated with Challenge Industries.
Although 408 had been a single-family mansion in the second half of the nineteenth century and
much of the twentieth, it could no longer be described in these terms before or after 2011, when
Leonardi granted it an exemption from site review; one assumes that the creation of an on-site
apartment for the new owner helped to harmonize that cognitive dissonance.
At the time, their proposal about the patio looked like this: “We propose a new gathering area on
the north and east sides of the inn to accommodate guests.” Although I do not think that this
proposal was duplicitous, it was certainly underspecified in light of the subsequent modifications for
the outdoor seating of Bar Argos. No mention of food trucks or the amphitheater, and the patio, it
was written, will be constructed for the benefit of “guests” (of the Inn, presumably), not bar
patrons. Again, it’s easy to see why such a wording was chosen: guests of an inn drink coffee and
read the paper; patrons of a bar drink cocktails and pull tables together for parties four, six, or eight,
growing louder as the night wears on.
I’m sure that it felt like a great relief for Avi to escape the environmental review at the time, but
subsequent events tell a different story: an environmental assessment of the predictable effects of
noise and bar smoke could have helped him avoid the mess we’re in now, a mess that is ongoing and
now threatens to expand across the parking lot to 416-18. An environmental assessment based on
accurate and explicit plans for the bar patio would have allowed his many neighbors to point out the
problems before the landscaping and construction was complete. Instead, the exemption from a site
review has transformed all of the homeowners currently on the block into a bunch of complainers,
voicing their objections to a Board that was supposed to evaluate the new bar in light of their
legitimate rights and interests.
The mess thus created has been shared by the Argos’s neighbors. Eventually, this mess is going to
be shifted somewhere else: to Avi, the police, or the courts. In the meantime, the Planning and
Development Board can keep the mess from spreading to two adjacent properties by rejecting this
proposal for the new bar. In our view, the P&D Board should also re-open a site review of the
Argos, in light of the obvious, persistent problems that have demonstrated conclusively that a review
should have happened in the first place (the whole point of an outdoor amphitheater is to project
sound, after all). From the perspective of the properties’ neighbors to the north, there are only two
workable solutions: either a high, thick wall somewhere up the elevation on the hill (Seth Waltz
warned that this wouldn’t work, but such barriers seem to work fine along highways), or a relocation
of the Bar Argos’s patio to the south side of the building, surrounding it with a five-foot stone wall
to attenuate road noise and provide a scenic and classy hangout area. This revision to the site is the
only way to escape the intractable noise problems of the steep elevation at the rear of the property,
which sends sound and smoke up to all the neighbors on the block and burdens them with the
environmental problems that properly belong to the Argos—and it is Avi who must shoulder this
burden financially.
Because of the underspecification of the original plans for the Argos, I don’t trust Avi and Ben to
stick to their current proposal for the new place. While I used to fear some future owner who might
move into the space in five years and do whatever he wants, I now simply fear the current owners,
one of whom has already demonstrated a loose relationship between the plans he submits to the
City planning office and the exterior modifications he actually makes.
According to Section 276-1 of the Ithaca City Code, the Planning and Development Board is
responsible for preserving and enhancing neighborhood character, and “achieving compatibility with
adjacent development and uses,” and “mitigating potentially negative impacts on traffic, parking,
drainage, the landscape and similar environmental concerns,” including noise and smoke. It should
be clear by now that the plans for 416-18 will not preserve neighborhood character, nor do they
promise compatibility. The potentially negative impacts on their adjacent properties are significant
and numerous. Furthermore, in six years there will likely be 500 students living at the new State
Street Triangle building, less than 500 feet away from the two bars under discussion here. Before
you vote on this proposal for 416-18, I urge you to consider what that confluence will mean for the
East Hill Historic District. Do you think it will contribute or enhance the neighborhood’s character?
Of course it will not.
Yours sincerely,
Benjamin Piekut
417 E Seneca Street
Page 1 of 3
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF) — Part III
Project Name: 327 Elmira Rd. — Herson Wagner Funeral Home
Date Created: 10/14/15 │ Updated: 11/12/15 & 11/17/15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this location. The L‐shaped project site is
1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings. The proposed project is to renovate the existing buildings, add a
46‐space parking area, a portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and drop‐off area, install
internal pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and add landscaping, lighting, and
signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the portion of the site contiguous to Elmira Road and
containing the larger building is in the SW‐2 District, while the larger portion of the site containing the smaller
building and proposed parking lot is in the R‐2a District. The rear portion of the site is currently used for
outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment.
The project requires a Use Variance for uses proposed in the R‐2a District. This is an Unlisted Action under the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to environmental review.
IMPACT ON LAND
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON WATER
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS & ANIMALS
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
Page 2 of 3
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE & ODORS
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated September 2015 and
prepared by GeoLogic NY, Inc. The assessment revealed the following recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the property:
Two USTs were removed from the Property in 1995. Petroleum contaminated soil was encountered in
the gasoline tank excavation. Soil was stockpiled on the Property. No information was available on the
presence and/or impacts to groundwater from these USTs. It appears that the excavated soil from the
tank removals is still located at the Property.
A 275‐gallon AST diesel was noted on the Property. The tank appears to be empty. No secondary
containment was noted for this AST. The AST is sitting directly on the ground. Spillage, if it occurred,
when pumping product from this tank, or placing product into this tank, could have an adverse impact
to the soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater quality of the Property.
Eight drums were noted on pallets. Most of the drums appeared to have contained new motor oil
(based on labels) and appear to be empty. One drum appeared to be full, contents unknown (no label).
Some leakage (petroleum?) was noted and was impacting the ground surface adjacent to one drum.
Release of material(s) from these drums could have an adverse impact to the soil, soil vapor and/or
groundwater quality of the Property.
A self‐contained solvent‐based parts washer is used at the Property. The parts washer is located
inside, on a concrete floor. Cracks were noted in the floor in the vicinity of the parts washer. Spillage of
solvents associated with this parts washer could have an adverse impact to the soil, soil vapor and/or
groundwater quality of the Property.
A Phase 2 ESA must be conducted to further investigate the RECs and determine if remediation is required.
The applicant intends to complete a Phase 2 ESA — if/when the required Use Variance is granted, when
there is more certainty the project will move forward.
The Lead Agency has required, and the applicant has agreed, to provide a Phase 2 ESA and remediation
plan, if needed, before consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval. The Phase 1 results indicate that
Page 3 of 3
environmental issues on the site are not serious and that any required site clean‐up will not be extensive.
The Lead Agency will reopen the environmental review, if the Phase 2 results indicate contamination is
more serious and clean‐up more extensive than anticipated, and if the applicant concurrently elects to
move forward with the project.
The Lead Agency recognizes any determination regarding the need for site remediation, as well as the
standard to which clean‐up is required for the intended end‐use, is under the jurisdiction of NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). If site development requires that impacted soils be
disturbed or reveals that other contamination exists on site, the applicant is required to follow established
protocols as dictated by NYS DEC and any other applicable agencies.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH & CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
The project requires a Use Variance for creation of a parking area in the portion of the site that is in the R‐2a
Zoning District.
The property has been in commercial use for nearly 50 years, and is currently used for sales and rentals of
construction equipment, tools, and associated supplies, including outdoor storage of goods and equipment.
One building on site is also used as a retail and rental store with office, storage, and warehouse area. The
second building has an office area and is used for retail sales of construction supplies. The remainder of the
property is used for parking and outside storage of large construction equipment and supplies. Currently, there
is little vegetation on site with the exception of approximately 0.43 acres of patches of lawn and scrubby
vegetation around the south periphery of the property. There is no visual barrier between the service yard and
the residential properties to the immediate south and west.
The project proposal would remove the existing gravel drive, storage yard, and parking, replacing it with an
asphalt drive with a turn‐around between the two buildings, and a parking lot in the south area of the lot. The
southeastern bay of the parking lot is proposed as porous asphalt. One large‐caliper shade tree in the
southeast corner of the property would be preserved, and new buffer plantings would be provided along the
south and east property lines, while the northern edge of the parking lot would have landscaped beds. The
applicant has also agreed to install a wooden privacy fence at the perimeter of the property.
The Lead Agency finds that the proposed project greatly improves the existing interface between the
residential and commercial uses. The proposed use is more compatible with residential than the existing use;
and the project provides a substantial and attractive visual buffer for the adjacent residents.
No impact anticipated.
Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP
PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
CEQR — Negative Declaration Site Plan Review
Herson Wagner Funeral Home Relocation
327 Elmira Rd.
November 24, 2015
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for the relocation of Herson Wagner Funeral Home to 327 Elmira Road., by Greg Myer of Myer
Funeral Services Corp., and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to relocate a funeral home business to this location. The L-shaped
project site is 1.24 acres and contains two existing buildings. The proposed project is to renovate the existing
buildings, add a 46-space parking area, a portion of which will be porous paving, entrance drive and drop-off
area, install internal pedestrian walkways, as well as a connection to the public sidewalk, and add
landscaping, lighting, and signage. The project site is in two Zoning Districts: the portion of the site
contiguous to Elmira Road and containing the larger building is in the SW-2 District, while the larger portion
of the site containing the smaller building and proposed parking lot is in the R-2a District. The rear portion of
the site is currently used for outdoor storage of goods and construction equipment. The project requires a Use
Variance for the proposed parking area in the R-2a District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility
for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on October 27, 2015 declare itself the Lead Agency
for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, has been given the opportunity to comment
on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on October 27, 2015
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; and the following drawings: “Boundary and
Topographic Map Showing Lands of JJJ Holdings, Inc. Located on Elmira Road – NYS Route 13, City of
Ithaca, Tompkins County NY,” dated 9/10/15, and “Site Utility Plan (C101),” dated 10/2/15, both prepared by
T.G. Miller P.C.; and “Illustrated Site Plan (L001),” “Demolition Plan (L101),” “Layout Plan (L201),”
“Grading Plan (L301),” “Planting Plan (L401),” and “Site Details (L501 & L502),” all prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels and dated 8/2/15; and “Building Elevations (AP101),” prepared by HOLT
Architects and dated 10/2/15; and other application materials, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will
result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent: Jones-Rounds
Vacancies: 0
1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
Design Review 224 E State St (Simeons)
Façade Reconstruction
November 24, 2015
WHEREAS: the Planning Division has one Limited Site Plan Review application submitted by
Jason Demarest, for owners Lang & Yong Shen, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the front portion of the building in the same
size, materials and style as previously existed. The most significant change to the storefront is the
relocation of the entry door to the left side of the three-bay, south side of the storefront. The
project is in the CDB-60 Zoning District and requires Design Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: the Design Review Board has on November 24, 2015 drawings entitled “Griffin
Building Perspectives” and “Griffin Building Façade Reconstruction Materials” both dated 11-
19-15 and prepared by Jason Demarest, Architect, and other, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the Design Review Board does submit the following recommendations
regarding the project:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent: Jones Rounds
Vacancies: 0
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
1 of 3
TO: Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM: Planning & Development Board
DATE: November 25, 2015
SUBJECT: Comments for Zoning Appeals 2991, 3000 and 3007
On November 24, 2015, members of the Planning and Development Board discussed the above‐listed Zoning
Appeals and agreed to forward the following recommendations:
APPEAL #2991 416‐418 E. State St./M.L.K., Jr. Blvd.
Area Variances
Appeal of Ben Rosenblum, owner of 416‐418 East State Street, for Area Variances from Section 325‐8, Columns
10, 12, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant purposes to renovate the existing building at 416‐418 East State Street, which is now partially
occupied. One apartment occupies the second floor and a portion of the first floor is used as office space. In the
past, the major portion of the first floor space was used as a printing plant and is now vacant. The applicant
proposes to renovate this space for a new 800‐SF bar and create an additional office spaces. In order to convert
the unoccupied space on the first floor to the new permitted uses, the applicant must obtain variances for
existing deficiencies. The property at 416‐418 has existing deficiencies pertaining to lot coverage, side yard, and
other side yard setbacks. Percentage of lot coverage is 60%; allowed is 50%. The building also is deficient in side
yard and other side yard setbacks. The side yard to the west of the building is 0.02 feet; required is 10 feet. The
other side yard to the east of the building is 0.1 feet; required is 5 feet.
The new bar, the office spaces, and the apartment require 29 off‐street parking spaces. There is one space for
handicapped parking and a space reserved for the apartment in the front yard of 416‐418 East State Street. The
applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Argos Inn at 408 East State Street, a
contiguous property west of 416‐18 East State Street, where the 31 spaces needed for the bar and office uses at
416‐18 East State Street can be met at the Argos Inn under a shared parking agreement.
The property at 416‐418 East State Street is in a B‐4 Zoning District where the proposed bar, office space, and
apartment space are permitted. However, Section 325‐38 requires that variances be granted before a Building
Permit is issued.
The Board recommends granting this appeal.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850‐5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607‐274‐6550 Community Development/IURA – 607‐274‐6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607‐274‐6558 Fax: 607‐274‐6558
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
2 of 3
APPEAL #3000 327 Elmira Rd.
Use Variance
Appeal of Barton Myer, LLC, as authorized representative for the owner JJJ Holdings, LLC for a variance from
Section 325‐8 Column 2, permitted uses, and Section 325‐8, column 7 and 11, lot width and front yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to purchase the property at 327 Elmira Road and
relocate the business, Herson Wagner Funeral home, to this location. This business is an allowed use in the SW‐2
zoning district, but only the western portion of the property at 327 Elmira Road is located in this zone, the
eastern portion of the property consisting of two contiguous parcel’s is in an R‐2a residential zoning district
where commercial and business uses are prohibited.
The property at 327 Elmira Road consists of two adjoining parcels, Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐2 and 124.‐1‐18 and has an
“L” shaped configuration. Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐2 has 90 lineal feet of frontage on Elmira Road and is approximately
320 feet in length. A portion of this parcel closest to Elmira Road is in the SW‐2 zone, however the R‐2a zoning
transition line bisects the parcel at approximately 160 feet East of Elmira Road. There are two commercial
buildings on this tax parcel. The first building is approximately 94 feet from the Elmira Road’s street curb and
entirely in the SW‐2 Zone. The second building is approximately 270 feet from the Elmira Road street curb and is
entirely in the R‐2a residential district. The abutting Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐18 is a land locked parcel that begins
approximately 160 feet East of Elmira Road and lies completely in the R‐2a use district.
Originally both lots were developed by Nichol Block and Brick Corporation in the 1950’s despite the fact that
much of this development was also in a residential use district. The business also included the rear yard of two
residential homes fronting on Spencer Road. In the 1990’s, Nichol Block and Brick wanted to sell the business.
However, the property could not be sold unless the residential uses facing Spencer Road were subdivided from
the commercial property between Elmira Road and Spencer Street and further, only if the owner was granted a
use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the developed commercial property located in the residential
district. Nichol Block appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), on August 10, 1995 for a use variance
claiming their business at 327 Elmira Road could not be utilized and sold without a use variance for a portion of
Tax Parcel 124‐1‐2 and all of the abutting parcels, now known as Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐18, which was used for the
Business’s parking and storage of vehicles. The BZA granted the requested variance under Appeal # 2274, based
on a preliminary subdivision map showing Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐18 being consolidated with Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐2.
Furthermore, the BZA stipulated that any new business/commercial use at 327 Elmira Road be one with a
business operation similar to the Nichol Block’s business. Subsequently, 327 Elmira Road was sold to J.C. Smith
Construction Equipment, a use that met the Board’s imposed use restriction for the property.
Barton Myer, the applicant proposes to renovate the existing building closest to Elmira Road for use as an
assembly space for receptions, services, and other gatherings. While a permitted use in the SW‐2 zone, this
building does not meet the zoning district’s required front yard requirements. This building is approximately 94
feet from the Elmira Road Street curb, the front yard requirement that the 35% of the building’s frontage be set
back from the street curb between 15 and 34 feet. The building at the rear of the property will be used for
customary funeral home services and will include office space. The applicant will develop Tax Parcel 124.‐1‐18 as
a landscaped parking area which will provide 46 parking spaces for both uses located on the property. The
portion of the property at 327 Elmira Road consisting of Parcel 124.‐1.2 and 124.‐1‐18 where the proposed
covered parking area, the funeral home service building, and the associated off‐street parking for both buildings
will be located is in an R‐2a use district where such uses are not permitted . Finally, Section 325‐38 requires that
both the requested use variance and the area variance from the SW‐2 Zone’s front yard setback requirements be
granted before a Building permit is issued.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
3 of 3
The Planning Board supports granting this appeal. It finds that the proposed project greatly improves the existing
interface between the residential and commercial uses. The proposed use is more compatible with residential
than the existing use; and the project provides a substantial and attractive visual buffer for the adjacent
residents.
APPEAL #3007 314 Park Place
Area Variance
Appeal of Kurt Martin, owner of 314 Park Place, for Area Variances from Section 325‐8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11, 12,
13, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear
Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to convert an existing one‐family dwelling at 314 Park Place to a two‐family dwelling,
having two bedrooms in each unit. This property has a number of existing area deficiencies, but only the
deficiency for off‐street parking will increase. The property does not meet the requirements of Section 325‐8,
Column 4 (Off‐Street Parking). As a single‐family home, the required off‐street parking for the existing three‐
bedroom house is one space, but the property has no off‐street parking spaces. The proposed two‐family
dwelling needs two parking spaces.
The property at 314 Park Place also has a number of existing deficiencies that will not be increased by the
applicant’s proposal. The property does not meet the requirements of:
Column 6, Lot Area Lot size is 1,864 SF; required is 3,000 SF.
Column 10, Lot Coverage Maximum percentage of lot coverage is 35%; lot coverage is 65.8%.
Column 11, Front Yard Front yard is 4’2”; required is 10’.
Column 12, Side Yard Side yard is 3’8”; required is 10’.
Column 13, Other Side Yard Other side yard is 3’5”; required is 5’.
Column 14/15, Rear Yard Rear yard is minus 0.3’; required is 20’.
The property at 314 Park Place is in an R‐2b Zoning District, where the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325‐38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long‐term planning issues with the appeal and supports granting it. The
Board recognizes the importance of opportunities for more housing within the City.
To: Board of Public Works
From: Planning & Development Board
Date: November 25, 2015
RE: Planning Board Comments on Discontinuance of Portions of Lake Ave. & Adams St.
The Planning Board conducted its review of the proposed development at 210 Hancock Street between
March and August 2015, and granted Final Site Plan Review on August 25, 2015. During that time, the
Board carefully reviewed the proposed conversion of portions of Lake Ave. and Adams St. into a bike and
pedestrian way, play area, and greenspace that would be closed to public vehicular traffic.
The Board fully supports this conversion which requires legal discontinuance. As stated in Part 3 of the
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), the Board identified the following major benefit of the
conversion:
“The path would provide a connection to the existing path at Conley Park directly to the
north and ultimately to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail (CWT) via the improved NYS Rte. 13 and
Dey St. crossings currently under construction. The installation of greenspace and a
playground extension on Adams functionally expands Conley Park.
“The effect of this conversion will be a continuous two‐block park along Cascadilla Creek
that will protect water quality in the creek and greatly enhance the beauty, value, and
accessibility of this natural feature in the neighborhood. The structured play area will
provide an amenity that the neighborhood currently lacks. Thus it is anticipated that the
proposed project will improve open space and recreational opportunities in the vicinity of
the project site”
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
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA DESARNO, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org