HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-14 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 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
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558
NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on OCTOBER 28TH, 2014 in COMMON
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
APPLICANT OVERHEAD PROJECTOR NEEDS:
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.)
1. Agenda Review
2. Privilege of the Floor (3‐minute maximum per person)
3. Site Plan Review
A. Project: Purity Ice Cream Renovations
Location: 700 Cascadilla St.
Applicant: John Snyder for Bruce Lane
Anticipated Board Action(s): Consideration of Project Changes
B. Project: 123‐Room Downtown Hotel
Location: 320‐324 E. M.L.K., Jr./E. State St.
Applicant: Scott Whitham for Neil Patel
Anticipated Board Action(s): Declaration of Lead Agency and Consideration of Resolution to Common Council in
Support of Infill Development in Downtown
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to build a six‐story, 70’‐tall hotel with 123 guest rooms. The
ground floor will include a breakfast room, a bar/lounge, a meeting room, and an approximately 2,000‐SF
retail/restaurant space. The second floor includes meeting rooms, a fitness area, and a outdoor terrace.
Exterior finishes include stone and brick veneers, metal panel systems, and aluminum windows. The site
layout features a drop‐off area with a glass and aluminum porte‐cochère, a 12‐space parking area, bike racks
and walkway accessible from State Street, and a pedestrian entrance to the hotel and retail space on Seneca
Way. The project is in the CDB‐100 Zoning District. The project site consists of three tax parcels: two
currently owned by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) and used as metered parking; and a portion of
another tax parcel in private ownership, also used as parking. Parcel consolidation and possible subdivision
will be required. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,
§176‐4 B. (1)(h.)(4), (k.), and (n.), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(9), and is subject
to environmental review. The project has received DESIGN REVIEW and requires approvals by the IURA and
Common Council for the sale of City property.
C. Project: Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
Location: 620 S. Aurora St.
Applicant: Scott Whitham/Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties
Anticipated Board Action(s): Declaration of Lead Agency & Potential Determination of Environmental
Significance
Project Description: The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/‐800,000‐SF
former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95‐acre parcel traversing the City and
Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for development of a mixed‐use district, which includes residential, commercial, office,
and manufacturing. The project is a mixed use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the
redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the
existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a Type
I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176‐4 B. (6), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires
a subdivision and approvals from the Town of Ithaca.
D. Project: 15,700‐SF Retail Building
Location: 500 S. Meadow St.
Applicant: Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
Anticipated Board Action(s): Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental
Significance, & Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval
Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 15,700‐SF retail building. The project site is a 17.7‐
acre parcel that contains an existing 115,000‐SF retail building (Wegmans), associated parking, and an access
road from Meadow Street. The new building will be located on an existing 201‐space parking area. Project
development will include parking for 88 cars, internal sidewalks, crosswalk striping, lighting, and landscaping.
The project is in the SW‐2 Zoning District. 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.
E. Project: 3‐Story Apartment Building
Location: 114 Catherine St.
Applicant: Jagat Sharma for Nick Lambrou
Anticipated Board Action(s): Declaration of Lead Agency
Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 3‐story apartment building, with a footprint of
1,974 SF and containing one 5‐bedroom and two 6‐bedroom units. The project site contains an existing
apartment building and a 13‐space parking lot with 7 in the back yard (to remain) and 6 spaces in the front
yard (to be replaced by the new building). The project also includes the removal of one curb‐cut. The project
is in the CR‐4 Zoning District, which requires either: (1) off‐street parking in accordance with §325‐45.5 F; or
(2) full compliance with the NYS Building Code or Residential Code for new construction and a TDM Plan
approved by the Planning Board. 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.
The project requires DESIGN REVIEW.
F. Sketch Plan: Upson Hall Renovations
G. Sketch Plan: 302‐306 College Ave.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
2
H. Sketch Plan: 402 S. Cayuga St.
4. Zoning Appeals
• Appeal #2958, Area Variance, 203 Third St.
• Appeal #2959, Area Variance, 714 N. Aurora St.
• Appeal #2964, Area Variance, 1108 N. Cayuga St.
• Appeal # 2966, Sign Variance, 120 S. Aurora St.
5. Old/New Business
A. Planning Board Comments Proposal to Amend the RU Zoning District
B. Update on Proposal to Eliminate Off‐Site Parking in a Different Zone
C. Minor Amendment to Site Plan Review Ordinance ― Fee Structure
6. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair (verbal)
B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal)
C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal)
7. Approval of Minutes: 7/22/14 & 9/23/14
8. Adjournment
Site Plan Review/Subdivision Applications & Associated Materials are accessible
electronically via the “Online Documents” portion of the City web site
(http://www.egovlink.com/ithaca/docs/menu/home.asp), under
“Planning_and_Economic_Development” > “Site_Plan_Review_Project_Applications,”
in the relevant year/month folder. Subdivision application materials can be similarly
located, in the “Subdivision_Applications” folder.
Zoning Appeal Materials are also accessible electronically via the “Online Documents”
portion of the City web site, under “Planning_and_Economic_Development” >
“Planning_and_Development_Board” > “Zoning_Appeals,” and in the relevant
year/month folder.
Other Meeting Materials scheduled for substantive discussion at this meeting, but not
associated with a specific Site Plan Review application or Zoning Appeal, may also be
accessible electronically via the “Online Documents” portion of the City web site, under
“Agendas” > “Planning_and_Development_Board,” in the relevant year/month folder,
alongside today’s agenda.
ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
3
PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
Declaration of Lead Agency Downtown Hotel
320-324 M.L.K., Jr./E. State St.
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter
176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established
for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental
law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Approval for a hotel to be located at 320-324 M.L.K., Jr./E. State Street by Scott
Whitham for Neil Patel, developer, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to build a six-story, 70’-tall hotel with 120 guest rooms.
The ground floor will include a breakfast room, a bar/lounge, meeting rooms, fitness area, pool,
and an approximately 2,000-SF retail/restaurant space. Exterior finishes include stone and brick
veneers, metal panel systems, and aluminum windows. The site layout features a drop-off area
with a glass and aluminum porte-cochère, a 12-space parking area, bike racks and walkway
accessible from State Street, and a pedestrian entrance to the hotel and retail space on Seneca
Way. The project site consists of three tax parcels: two currently owned by the Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA) and used as metered parking; and a portion of another tax parcel in
private ownership, also used as parking. Parcel consolidation, possible Subdivision, and Design
Review are required, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, §176-4 B. (1)(h.)(4), (k.), and (n.), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
§617.4 (b)(9), and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the New York State Department of Transportation, the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), and the City of Ithaca Common Council, all potentially
involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead
Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the New York State Department of Transportation, the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency (IURA), and the City of Ithaca Common Council have consented to the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this
resolution declaring its intent to act as Lead Agency in environmental review for the proposed
project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Declaration of Lead Agency Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
620 S. Aurora St.
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott
Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and
WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former
Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town
of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office,
and manufacturing. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the
redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the
existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a
Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), and is subject to environmental review. The project
requires a Subdivision and approvals from the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: this project will require approval from Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of
Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the
NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation, and
WHEREAS: Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS
Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have all consented to
the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is by way of this resolution declaring
itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1
10/23/2014 Page 1 of 11
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF) ― Part III
620 S. Aurora St. ― Chain Works District
Date Created: 10/14/14
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a mixed‐use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the redevelopment of
four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing Emerson
Power Transmission/Morse Chain Factory on South Hill; (3) potential future development within
areas of the remainder of site adjacent to the existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future
development with areas of the remainder of the site. This redevelopment project will create a new
District consisting of residential, offices, commercial, manufacturing, and open space within the
existing 821,200‐square foot facility. The 95‐acre property is located along the State Rte. 96B
corridor, S. Aurora Street/Danby Road, and where Turner Street and South Cayuga Street meet the
Northern edge of South Hill. The site is currently zoned as an Industrial Zoning District (City) and as
Industrial (Town). The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), site plan and
subdivision review with the City and a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) with the Town of Ithaca.
The project will involve approvals by the following agencies:
• Common Council
• Planning and Development Board
• Town of Ithaca Board
• Town of Ithaca Planning Board
• Tompkins County Departments of Health
• New York State Department of Transportation
• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
• New York State Department of Heath
Development History of the Site
The 95 acre project site contains the former Morse Chain factory, the largest manufacturing facility
in Tompkins County which operated for over 80 years at this location. The Morse Chain Company
was incorporated in Trumansburg in 1901, and erected a new 80,000‐square foot plant on the
project site in 1906 for manufacturing automobile chain. Between 1914 and 1916 the Ithaca plant
quadrupled in size and expanded its operations beyond automobile chains to airplanes, adding
machines, electric clocks, and typewriters. By 1928, the plant expanded again to develop the roller
chain and pocket‐sized calculator. The facility continued to develop and expand in 1946, 1957‐59,
1963‐65, 1967‐69, and in the 1970s, reaching its current size of over 800,000 square feet.
In the early 1980s, portions of the business were moved to other locations, such as a new facility on
Warren Road near the Ithaca Airport. By 1983, Borg‐Warner sold the property to Emerson Power
Transmission, where it continued to develop new products in the existing facility. Emerson
continued to operate and employ many Ithacans through the 1990s and 2000s. In 2007, it began to
migrate operations to Cincinnati, OH and by 2011 it officially ended its operations in Ithaca and
closed the factory.
10/23/2014 Page 2 of 11
IMPACT ON LAND
The site measures 95 acres and straddles the City /Town border. The project site is bounded as
follows:
To the east the property follows S Aurora Street /NYS Route 96 B, a major transportation
corridor that connects downtown Ithaca to South Hill, Ithaca College, and the residential
neighborhoods in the Towns of Ithaca. It is a primary route for travelers from Binghamton
and points south.
To the north the property borders lower residential neighborhoods comprised primarily of
single and multiple family homes
To the west, the property slopes steeply to meet Spencer Street then traces the back of the
residential properties lining the east side of Spencer Road. In the Town of Ithaca, the
property line traces the alignment of the former Lehigh Valley Railroad and future Gateway
Trail, as well as a large parcel of undeveloped land
To the south the property borders South Hill Business Campus in the Town of Ithaca.
In general the property slopes steeply east‐to‐west with the highest elevation, of approximately
800’, being at the top of South Aurora Street and the lowest, of approximately 440’, being where the
property meets Spencer Street. The drawing titled “Conceptual Site Plan Diagram and Slope
Analysis” dated 10‐21‐14 (Exhibit A) and submitted by the applicant, illustrates that 53.3 acres of the
site have slopes over 15% and 42 acres have slopes of less than 15%. Portions of the site that are
currently developed are primarily located in areas in which the slopes are less than 15% grade.
Potential future development beyond the rehabilitation of the existing structures will be primarily
located in areas with slopes less than 15%, while areas with slopes greater than 15% will be
conserved.
77 acres, or approximately 80% of the project site is currently forested (34 acres/35%) or in some
unspecified vegetated state (43.7 acres/45.5%), while 17.3 acres, or 20% is comprised of buildings
roads, and other impervious surfaces. Conceptual plans anticipate an increase on impervious
surfaces of 11.2 acres (from 17.3 acres to 28.5 acres) or approximately 11%.
Natural features of the site include exposed bedrock along the steeper slopes of the property and a
heavily wooded area in the southern portion of the site. Apart from the topography of the site, the
extent and quality of other natural features, including vegetation, is not well understood. More
information is needed about the undeveloped areas of the site in order to determine potential
impacts of site disturbance and future development.
IMPACT ON WATER & DRAINAGE
Conceptual plans anticipate an increase on impervious surfaces of 11.2 acres (from 17.3 acres to
28.5 acres) or approximately 11%.
There are two unnamed tributaries that converge and run east to west within the project site to Six
Mile Creek. No other surface water or ephemeral water features are known to exist. The hydrology
of the site is not well understood. Some on‐site stormwater infrastructure is in place due to
previous development, all of which preceded current State, Local and Federal storm water
regulations. There are numerous catch basins to collect stormwater runoff but the extent,
connections and outfalls of the system is not known.
10/23/2014 Page 3 of 11
Stormwater discharges from construction activities for the project are required to obtain permit
coverage through New York’s State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). The design of
the stormwater infrastructure shall follow the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity
(GP‐0‐10‐001) requirements as well as City and Town development guidelines.
More information is needed in order to determine and evaluate existing hydrology and stormwater
infrastructure and the potential impacts of future development and construction activities.
See Impacts to Public Health for information on groundwater contamination.
IMPACT ON AIR
Potentially impactful noise and odors may be a result of construction and remediation activities as
well as proposed future uses.
Traffic generated as a result of the project could have an impact on air quality on the intensity of the
proposed uses. Congestion and slow moving traffic could elevate the amount of exhaust emission in
the area.
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
77 acres, or approximately 80% of the project site is currently forested (34 acres/35%) or in some
unspecified vegetated state (43.7 acres/45.5%). Conceptual plans anticipate an increase on
impervious surfaces of 11.2 acres (from 17.3 acres to 28.5 acres) or approximately 11%. This will
likely include removal of mature trees and other potentially important vegetation.
The flora and fauna on the site is not well understood. A flora and fauna survey is needed to
determine potential impacts of future development and construction activities.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The project site sits high above the center of the City and the existing buildings are a prominent
feature from points within the downtown area and the residential neighborhoods to the north. The
site extends for approximately ¾ of a mile along South Aurora Street, along which views of the
existing buildings and parking areas are often screened by mature vegetation and limited low
density residential development. There is one prominent view into the site from South Aurora
Street at the northernmost corner.
There are various and expansive views to Cayuga Lake and surrounding areas from within the site.
More information is needed to determine potential impacts to aesthetic resources. At a minimum,
the following should be considered:
• Design principles for architecture, landscaping, green space, site lighting, screening and
other aesthetic considerations (potential Design Guidelines)
• Renderings and elevations.
• Visual simulations from adjacent areas that may be impacted
• Landscaping, including location and types of plantings and how they may reduce any
adverse visual impacts
10/23/2014 Page 4 of 11
Visuals and sections that demonstrate how the existing grade elevation with the
development works with sight lines and viewsheds internal/external to the site
Proposed signage.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The majority of the 95 acre site is in an undeveloped state. A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory
should be completed to identify any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
The project site contains a portion of the future alignment of the planned Gateway Trail, which will
connect downtown Ithaca and South Hill neighborhoods to the future Black Diamond Trail (BDT), via
the old Lehigh Valley Railroad alignment and an existing bridge over Route 13 at the entrance to the
City. In 2013, the property owner of 620 S Aurora Street submitted a subdivision application to the
Planning Board for consideration. The Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in the Environmental
Review of the subdivision, did on October 23, 2013 issue a negative declaration of environmental
significance subject to implementation of the mitigations required in the FEAF Part 3, which state
“that a continuous permanent easement for the Gateway Trail be established and recorded on the
final subdivision plat before subdivision approval is granted. The easement should allow for
construction, public use, and maintenance of the future trail and should either follow the preferred
alignment — that which follows the former railroad right of way — or an equivalent feasible
alignment that is agreeable to the City.” Negations regarding a mutually acceptable trail alignment
are ongoing.
Discussion of the trail in the FEAF Part 3 for the subdivision, accepted by the Lead Agency on 0ctober
23, 2013, is applicable to this new action and reads as follows:
The Black Diamond Trail is a major local and State‐supported trail initiative that will connect
Robert H. Treman, Buttermilk Falls, Allan H. Treman and Taughannock Falls State Parks. The
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) describes the
trail in the executive summary of the Black Diamond Trail Final Master Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement:
“The Black Diamond Trail is a 15‐mile, off‐road pedestrian and bicycle dedicated trail facility
proposed for Tompkins County, New York. The trail will provide residents and visitors with an
alternate way to travel to several destinations in the county including the four major State
Parks and many other popular community destinations in the City of Ithaca and the Towns of
Ithaca and Ulysses. The trail’s setting includes stream bottomlands, the urban setting of the
City of Ithaca and pastoral rural lands.”
The document identifies the Gateway Trail as a spur trail, connecting the BDT to the South
Hill Recreation Way, describing it on page v‐57 of the document:
“The northern spur trail will be developed jointly by the OPRHP, City of Ithaca and Town of
Ithaca as the Gateway Trail. The trail will utilize the Gateway Bridge installed by the City of
Ithaca in 2000 and the OPRHP’s land purchased in 1984. The Gateway Trail is intended to link
the developing trail network in the City of Ithaca to the Town of Ithaca’s trails south and east
of the city. For much of its course, the Gateway Trail will use the abandoned railroad corridor
that traverses the south hill. The trail will also link the City’s south and east neighborhoods to
10/23/2014 Page 5 of 11
Buttermilk Falls State Park, the Black Diamond Trail and the City of Ithaca’s developing
Southwest Area, including the future Southwest Natural Area Park.”
In a letter, dated September 4, 2013, from Ed Marx, County Commissioner of Planning and
Community Sustainability, to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, the County determined the
project might have inter‐community or county‐wide impacts to the former Lehigh Valley
Railroad right‐of‐way, “which is an important future trail corridor.”
In comments submitted on October 14, 2013 from the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
to the Planning and Development Board, the CAC recommended that the Board:
“Clarify public access for the Black Diamond Trail through both OU‐1 & OU‐2. Secure an
easement or some other means of ensuring the Black Diamond Trail can continue through or
around OU‐1.”
In a letter dated October 17, 2013 from Susan Ritter, Director of Planning for the Town of
Ithaca, to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, Ritter writes:
“As you are aware, the Town of Ithaca (with the City of Ithaca and NYS Parks as partners)
received funding several years ago to construct the Gateway Trail along this former railroad
grade. This multiuse trail will connect the South Hill Recreation Way with Buttermilk Falls
State Park and eventually serve as a vital link to the Black Diamond Trail which will also
provide connections to other area trails. Development of this trail has unfortunately been
stymied for many years by the failure to gain legal trail access through the EPT [Emerson
Power Transmission] property. In more recent years, with the property being offered for sale,
EPT officials have been disinclined to engage in any discussion concerning a trail easement to
allow access on their property. While disappointing, the prospect for sale of the property has
given the Town hope that a solution would be reached with an eventual new owner who
would see the value and opportunity this multiuse trail would offer in any redevelopment of
the site.
Upon approval of this subdivision, a key piece of the proposed trail will remain in EPT
ownership, and it is our fear that the company will remain a disinterested party to the future
of the Gateway Trail. The current subdivision request, therefore, presents an important
opportunity to actively engage in dialogue with EPT officials to find and explore concrete
solutions for trail access; one that addresses EPT's security and maintenance needs, while still
ensuring a viable trail connection. The Town urges the City to postpone any decision on the
subdivision request until meaningful and constructive discussions take place on the future of
this very important community asset.”
In comments received October 18, 2013, the City Transportation Engineer, Tim Logue, writes:
“The old railroad right of way through this property is a critical component of a proposed city‐
wide network of interconnected, multi‐modal pathways that Public Works and Planning have
considered in a draft trail plan for the City. In fact, the network has a very real potential to
expand into a trail system of regional significance, with connections to the NYS Black
Diamond Trail, the City’s Cayuga Waterfront Trail, and the Town of Ithaca’s South Hill
Recreation Way and Gateway Trail. This proposed 25 mile trail network would have limited
intersections with vehicular traffic and would connect the South Hill, Inlet Valley, West Hill,
Northside and Fall Creek neighborhoods with the waterfront, numerous state parks and
important commercial districts. The benefits could be significant in the realms of
transportation, recreation, economic development (including tourism), and public health. It
10/23/2014 Page 6 of 11
would be very wise to include this trail right of way in the continued and coordinated planning
for growth and development in this area.”
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
The project will significantly increase development density in an area that is characterized by a
heavy volume of commuter traffic to South Hill, including Ithaca College. The development is in
close proximity to residential neighborhoods, which will be impacted by increased traffic volume.
The development’s proximity to the downtown core and Ithaca College make it well situated for
alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, car pooling, and mass transit), however, the
potential impact on this area will need careful study in order to determine the magnitude of the
impacts and most effective mitigations.
The applicant will provide a detailed discussion and complete analysis of the Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) for the proposed project, identifying all potential impacts the Project will have on the
transportation system, along with incremental mitigation measures. The TIS will include a
description of the existing roadway network, peak traffic volumes, and associated Level of Service
(LOS). There will also be discussion as to any potential post‐development impacts on the
improvements, and traffic and mitigation.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
A Utility Capacity Analysis is needed to determine any impacts to energy.
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
Potentially impactful noise and odors may be a result of construction and remediation activities as
well as proposed future uses.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Environmental History of Site
Borg‐Warner Corporation owned the property from approximately 1928 to 1983 and manufactured
automotive components and power transmission equipment. Trichloroethene (TCE) was utilized by
Borg‐Warner Corporation for degreasing metal parts up until the late 1970s. Emerson Power
Transmission (EPT) currently owns the Site. Investigations in 1987 revealed groundwater
contamination at the Site that reportedly emanated from a fire‐water reservoir located on the
western portion of the property. Due to this contamination, the Site was added to the New York
State Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Registry in July 1987 as a Class 2 site and is currently
undergoing remediation.
There is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Site from 1994 and a ROD Amendment from 2009. The original ROD in 1994 was
predominantly based on a Remedial Investigation (RI) completed in 1991 along with additional
studies. The 2009 ROD Amendment was predominantly based on a Supplemental RI completed in
2008 along with additional studies. The previous RIs were completed while the Site was an active
industrial facility and the remedial objective at the time was for re‐use as an industrial facility. The
potential purchaser of the Site intends to redevelop the Site for mixed uses that include residential,
commercial and industrial uses.
10/23/2014 Page 7 of 11
LaBella Associates, P.C. conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the former
Emerson Power Transmission (EPT) facility located at 620 South Aurora Street, Ithaca, New York,
hereinafter referred to as the “Site”. Excluded from the definition of the “Site” is an area of the
property designated as “OU‐1” in the Emerson Power Transmission Company application for minor
subdivision to the City of Ithaca, Tax Parcel #106.‐1‐8. Full copies of the Phase I and II ESAs are
available on‐line: http://tinyurl.com/Emerson‐ESA
The Phase II ESA was completed to determine whether suspected impacts associated with the
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) identified in the Phase I ESA existed and to begin the
process of evaluating the extent of those impacts. A brief summary of the results of the Phase II ESA
highlighting the more significant findings are presented below. (For all refernces see
http://tinyurl.com/Emerson‐ESA)
TCE in Groundwater & Soil – Building 24
A facility drawing identified former plating operations within Building 24 in an area where
elevated VOC concentrations in sub‐slab soil vapors were previously detected. The Phase II
work identified TCE impacts beneath Building 24 in shallow soil and overburden groundwater in
proximity to SB‐401 and in the uppermost weathered bedrock layer in proximity to LBA‐MW‐
40S. Impacts were not identified in bedrock groundwater beneath the weathered layer (i.e., top
3‐ft.) in wells installed in Building 24. However, TCE was identified in an apparent groundwater
discharge emanating from beneath the former transformer pad on the west side of Building 24
and discharging to the drainage feature in this area.
Building 14/15 Salt Pots/Cyanide Area and Barium/Cyanide in Groundwater
Building 14 has a history of being utilized for salt baths and Building 15 was known to store
cyanide. In addition, a former Building 16 located in the northern portion of current Building 35
appears to have utilized cyanide. As recently as 1981, barium chloride, sodium cyanide and
copper cyanide were used at the Site. Based on these operations, several borings and
monitoring wells were advanced in/around Buildings 14 and 15.
Elevated concentrations of barium were identified in several locations including residual
crystalline materials on top of the concrete in Building 14, within the concrete floor slabs in the
areas of the salt pots and within underlying bedrock beneath the salt pots. In addition, a sample
of the bedrock in the area of the salt baths detected barium at a concentration of 4,720 parts
per million (ppm) which is almost 12 times the NYSDEC Part 375‐6 Restricted Residential Soil
Cleanup Objective (SCO) of 400 ppm and almost 6 times the NYSDEC Part 375‐6 Protection of
Groundwater SCO. Barium also exceeded the NYSDEC Part 375‐6 Restricted Residential and
Protection of Groundwater SCOs in several soil samples down gradient of this area that were
collected/analyzed as part of the 2008 Supplemental RI.
As part of the Phase II ESA, barium was detected in 48 groundwater samples with 11 of those
samples exceeding the Part 703 Groundwater Standard at a number of locations throughout the
property with a range of 1.3 to 10.8 times the Groundwater Standard. Cyanide was detected in
33 groundwater samples with 18 of those samples exceeding the Part 703 Groundwater
Standard at a number of locations throughout the property with a range of 1.65 to 44 times the
Groundwater Standard.
Free Petroleum Product
Historically, operations at the Site involved significant amounts of oils (cutting oil, quench oil,
etc.) Areas with potential petroleum sources were evaluated. A former quench oil pit in
Building 9 where previous testing noted petroleum odors was identified as one of several
10/23/2014 Page 8 of 11
potential areas of concern for releases of oil. The petroleum product impacts discovered to date
appear to be the result of at least two different sources, specifically, two subsurface quench pits
located in Building 9 and 14, with the impacts found generally around and directly downgradient
of those areas. Furthermore, the 2009 ROD identified other areas of petroleum impacts.
VOCs in Groundwater in MW‐29
Monitoring well LBA‐MW‐29 (located between Buildings 2 and 17) was installed during the
initial stage of the Phase II ESA for several purposes which included: 1) evaluating a proposed
‘Degreaser Tank’ in Building 17; 2) groundwater down gradient of Building 2; and, 3) the sanitary
sewer within the alleyway between Buildings 2 and 17. A groundwater sample from this
monitoring well identified chlorinated VOCs (CVOCs) with a total concentration of approximately
1.45 ppm. The worst case impacts are present between approximately 27‐ft. and 39‐ft. below
ground surface (bgs).
As part of the second stage of Phase II testing additional wells were placed in the vicinity of LBA‐
MW‐29 to delineate the extent of impacts found in LBA‐MW‐29. Concentrations of chlorinated
VOCs similar to those observed in LBA‐MW‐29 were not observed in the supplemental wells.
Based on the supplemental results, it does not appear that a large scale source is present in this
area; however, there may be a need to address and/or monitor the impacts identified in LBA‐
MW‐29.
Southwestern Portion of Site ‐ Building 30/Rice Paddy/Driveway Area
Based on disturbances seen on historical aerials and prior testing which identified elevated
concentrations of metals, PCBs and SVOCs in the southwestern portion of the Site, LaBella
advanced test borings and test pits in the southern portions of the Site in the area of Building
30, the ‘Rice Paddy’ area and in the area of the service road that extends south to the surface
water tributary to Six Mile Creek. This testing identified metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, and lead) in several samples of soil/fill materials at concentrations above the
NYSDEC Part 375‐6 Restricted Residential and/or Protection of Groundwater SCOs. Pesticides
were detected in one sample within the Rice Paddy area at concentrations above the NYSDEC
Part 375‐6 Restricted Residential SCOs and the same sample also detected PCBs above the
Protection of Groundwater SCO. Samples from this area analyzed for Full Toxicity Characteristic
Leachate Procedure (TCLP) did not identify any concentrations above the characteristic
hazardous waste criteria. TCE and PCE were also detected in a soil sample just north of Building
30 but only the TCE concentration exceeded the Restricted Residential SCO.
Sediments & Seeps
Based on surface contours and drainage ways at the Site, sediment samples were collected to
evaluate potential areas of accumulated contaminants. Drainage areas are located down
gradient of the main plant building and samples of sediment from two drainage areas identified
concentrations of SVOCs, metals, pesticides and PCBs at concentrations that exceed the criteria
identified in NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments (1999). These
sediment areas are located down gradient (northwest) of Buildings 17/18 and Building 34.
Based on the impacts above the NYSDEC sediment criteria, these two sediment areas appear to
warrant further evaluation.
Four seep samples were also analyzed. One seep sample was collected from below the former
transformer pad on the western side of Building 24. This seep flows into a drainage feature that
runs parallel to Building 24 and flows to the north. This sample was analyzed for PCBs and
VOCs; although PCBs were not identified above laboratory method detection limits, TCE was
detected at a concentration over 6 times the Groundwater Standard in this sample. Also, one of
10/23/2014 Page 9 of 11
two seep samples collected from the basement of Building 18 (numerous pipes with running
water were observed entering the basement) identified concentrations of cis‐1,2‐DCE and vinyl
chloride above the Part 703 Groundwater Standard. The discharge location for this seep has not
yet been determined. A resampling of that seep performed by Emerson was nondetect for all of
the constituents mentioned. A sample of another seep emanating from a retaining wall at the
top of Cayuga Street (directly downgradient of the Former Degreaser Area) detected TCE slightly
above Groundwater Standards.
Residual Materials in Sanitary/Wastewater Conveyance Piping, Manholes & Pits
After observing sludge in a number of manholes and pits, LaBella collected samples from several
of these structures. The results of this testing identified elevated concentrations of metals in
numerous sludge samples and elevated cyanide in two samples (one interior pit and one in an
apparent former oil/water separator in the former scrap loading dock area at the top of South
Cayuga Street). Three of the four samples analyzed for reactivity detected reactive sulfides.
PCB Impacts
Two of the 17 samples of concrete beneath/in proximity to former and current pad mounted
and pole mounted transformers identified PCBs above 1 ppm. These 2 concrete samples were
collected from the concrete pad northwest of Building 24. In addition, one surface soil sample
with PCBs greater than 1 ppm was collected beneath the asphalt pavement in proximity to this
same pad, indicating a release of PCBs to the environment requiring remediation.
CVOCs in Soil in SB‐223
A soil sample collected from SB‐223 located approximately 50 feet east of Building 14 at a depth
of 1‐ft. bgs detected PCE above Restricted Residential and Protection of Groundwater SCOs.
Soil Vapor Intrusion
The Phase II ESA testing included select building for SVI evaluation that were not previously
tested or that were tested to confirm previous results. The Phase II ESA testing indicated the
following additional requirements for buildings at the Site:
a. Mitigation of Buildings 5, 6 and 18
b. Monitoring of Buildings 2 (basement portion), 9, 13A, and 17
It should also be noted that the other buildings evaluated for SVI as part of the Phase II ESA also
detected some level of VOCs in the sub‐slab and indoor air. SVI testing for free cyanide in
Buildings 8, 14, 15 and 35 did not identify concentrations of cyanide above laboratory MDLs in
the sub‐slab soil gas or indoor air.
Additional Investigation/Remediation
The results of the Phase II ESA were shared with NYSDEC and Emerson. NYSDEC is currently
reviewing work plans submitted by Emerson to further delineate impacts to soil and groundwater
discovered by the Phase II ESA. Emerson is also developing a work plan to remediate the PCB
release discovered around the former transformer pad outside Building 24 to be submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency and NYSDEC for approval before proceeding with additional
action. Additional delineation will be needed before a determination can be made about what
other remediation and/or mitigation is required at the Site to allow for its proposed redevelopment.
NOTE: The area of the firewater reservoir is known as Operable Unit 1 (OU‐1) was not evaluated as
part of this Phase II ESA. This parcel is not yet subdivided from the project site, and when
subdivision is complete, parcel boundaries of OU‐1 will be overwhelmingly contiguous with the
10/23/2014 Page 10 of 11
project site. Information about the contamination history and cleanup program for this site should
be considered.
Potential Impacts from Proposed Uses:
The proposed project is a mixed use development and will have an industrial component. The range
of industrial uses anticipated may include assembly, food production, storage, incubators,
fabricators, welding, etc. that can co‐exist on a site with other commercial and residential uses.
Heavier industrial uses such as foundries are not anticipated. Industrial uses may require the use
or storage of materials that will require Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans.
If that is the case, the Applicant/Tenants will apply to the appropriate State/Federal Agencies, and if
necessary, the City or Town of Ithaca, for any needed approvals. All City/Town/State/Federal
regulations we be followed.
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUMITY OR NIEGHBOORHOOD
The project will impact the growth of the community. It differs in concentration and intensity of
land use and can be expected to have impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods and possibly other
areas of the community. Impacts could include those related to changes in the flow of traffic
(pedestrian, vehicular & bicycle), concentration of need for public safety response and utility
capacity. The project will also impact the visual character particularly of South Aurora Street,
A Utility Capacity Analysis is needed to determine any impacts. The Applicant has met initially with
the City of Ithaca Department of Public Works (DPW) to discuss the existing public water and
sanitary sewer services to the existing buildings. Initial discussions indicate there is sufficient
capacity within the public systems for the Project. The Applicant will provide estimates of public
water usage and sanitary sewer loadings, as well as coordinate with DPW to analyze the capacity for
future development.
DETERMINATION:
It is this reviewer’s opinion that several of the impacts as identified in the FEAF for the proposed
Planned Unit Development, Site Plan and Subdivision relating to the Chain Works District project are
potentially large. Furthermore, it is not possible to identify mitigation measures without additional
investigation and evaluation by qualified experts. It is the reviewer’s determination that this project
may result in one or more major impacts that cannot be reduced and may have a significant impact
on the environment. The reviewer recommends that a Positive Declaration of Environmental
Significance be issued and that a Generic Environmental Impact Study be prepared for the Chain
Works District project.
Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Senior Planner
10/23/2014 Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
CEQR Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
620 S. Aurora St.
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott
Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and
WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former
Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of
Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and
manufacturing. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the
redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the
existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a Type
I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires
a Subdivision and approvals from the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall
be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS
Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have all been
identified as involved agencies, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town
Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department
of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS
Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have consented to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies have been given
the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that this Planning and Development Board, having declared itself Lead Agency in this matter,
hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 1, 2, and 3, and be it further
2
RESOLVED: that this Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, hereby determines that the proposed
action of site plan approval for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project may have one or
more significant environmental impacts, and that a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance be
issued, and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) be prepared, and be it further
RESOLVED: that this resolution constitutes notice of this Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance
and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City
Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
CEQR Chain Works District Redevelopment Project
620 S. Aurora St.
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Approval for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project to be located at 620 S. Aurora Street by Scott
Whitham and Jamie Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties, and
WHEREAS: the proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former
Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of
Ithaca’s municipal boundary. The applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office, and
manufacturing. The project is a mixed-use development consisting of four primary phases: (1) the
redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
existing buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the
existing buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the site. This is a Type
I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 B. (6), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (b)(3), and is subject to environmental review. The project requires
a Subdivision and approvals from the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall
be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS: Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS
Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have all been
identified as involved agencies, and
WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town
Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department
of Health, the NYS Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the Common Council, the Planning Board, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS
Department of Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation have consented to the
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested agencies have been given
the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that this Planning and Development Board, having declared itself Lead Agency in this matter,
hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (FEAF), Parts 1, 2, and 3, and be it further
2
RESOLVED: that this Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, hereby determines that the proposed
action of site plan approval for the proposed Chain Works District Redevelopment Project may have one or
more significant environmental impacts, and that a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance be
issued, and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) be prepared, and be it further
RESOLVED: that this resolution constitutes notice of this Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance
and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City
Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1
TSB
TSB
TSB
SSP
TSB
Elec.Box
T
S
B
TSB
NY
S
E
G
2
7
TSB
TMH
TMH
SSP
TSB
S
o
u
t
h
M
e
a
d
o
w
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
.
Y
.
S
.
R
o
u
t
e
1
3
)
Stop Sign
Con
c
re
te
Curb
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
Wa
lk
V
a
u
lt
Concrete Curb
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
u
r
b
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
Wa
lk
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
Wa
lk
Concrete Curb
Concrete Curb
Stop Sign
Grass
Grass
Grass Grass
Grass
Grass
Sign
Merge Arrow
Concrete Curb
Concrete Curb Granite Curb
Grass Grass
De
lin
e
a
t
o
r
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
Wa
lk
"
No
S
t
a
n
d
in
g
"
Concrete Curb
G
r
a
n
it
e
C
u
r
b
"10 MPH"
G
r
a
s
s
G
r
a
s
s
Grass
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
u
r
b
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
u
r
b
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
in
e
Asphalt
Grass
G
r
a
s
s
G
r
a
s
s
G
r
a
s
s
G
r
a
s
s
G
r
a
s
s
G
r
a
s
s
Asphalt
L.P.
L.P.
L.P.
Conc. Walk
Recycling" Grass
"Tompkins County
Granite Curb
Property Line
Sign
Stop
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
Wa
lk
Arrow
Merge
Sign
Stop
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
u
r
b
L.P.
Pad
Conc.
Box on
Control
"Exit"
Sign
Sign
Brick
31
NYSEG
22
NYSEG
R
ig
h
t
-
o
f
-
Wa
y
L
in
e
PROPOSED RETAIL
15,700 SF
W
B-
67
A
A
S
H
T
O
200
4
(
U
S)
WB-67
AASHTO 2004 (US)
WB-67
AASHTO 2004 (US)
WB-67
AASHTO 2004 (US)
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
M
A
IN
153.5'
10
1
.
3
'
EXIT
EMERGENCY
ENTRANCE
DELIVERY
ROOM
MECH/ELEC.
DOCK RAMP
LOADING
DOCK
LOADINGLPLP
LP
LP
LP LP
LP
LP
LP
LP LP
LP
LPLP
LP
LP
LP
ENCLOSURE
DUMPSTER
U
N
A
U
T
H
O
R
IZ
T
IO
N
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
IO
N
O
R
A
D
D
IT
IO
N
S
T
O
T
H
IS
14
5
S
E
C
T
IO
N
7
2
0
9
A
N
D
A
R
T
IC
L
E
14
7
S
E
C
T
IO
N
7
3
0
7
.
D
R
A
W
IN
G
IS
IN
VIO
L
A
T
IO
N
O
F
S
T
A
T
E
E
D
U
C
A
T
IO
N
L
A
W
A
R
T
IC
L
E
STORE NO.
DWG NO.
IT
H
A
C
A
-
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
:
D
R
A
W
IN
G
:
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
15
0
0
B
R
O
O
K
S
A
VE
N
U
E
P
.O
.
B
O
X
3
0
8
4
4
C
O
P
Y
R
IG
H
T
2
0
0
8
B
Y
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
IN
C
.,
A
L
L
R
IG
H
T
S
R
E
S
E
R
VE
D
.
T
H
E
S
E
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
A
R
E
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
O
F
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
IN
C
.
N
O
D
U
P
L
IC
A
T
IO
N
IS
P
E
R
M
IT
T
E
D
W
IT
H
O
U
T
W
R
IT
T
E
N
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
F
R
O
M
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
IN
C
.
C
IV
IL
E
N
G
IN
E
E
R
IN
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
G
R
O
U
P
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
,
N
E
W
Y
O
R
K
14
6
0
3
-
0
8
4
4
O
W
N
E
R
:
F
IL
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
N
:
S
C
A
L
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
D
E
S
IG
N
P
R
IN
T
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
:
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
IO
N
(
5
8
5
)
-
4
6
4
-
4
6
0
0
D
A
T
E
B
ID
D
IN
G
R
E
V
IE
W
P
E
R
M
IT
N
O
.
R
E
VIS
IO
N
D
A
T
E
N
E
B
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
C
(
5
8
5
)
5
1
2
-
2
0
0
0
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
,
N
Y
1
4
6
0
4
2
5
5
E
A
S
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
800-962-7962
Dig Safely.
New York
Dig With Care
Respect the Marks
Confirm Utility Response
Wait The Required Time
Call Before You Dig
digsafelynewyorkwww..org
M
R
H
5
0
0
S
O
U
T
H
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
IT
Y
O
F
IT
H
A
C
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
O
F
T
H
O
M
P
K
IN
S
,
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
N
E
W
Y
O
R
K
1"=
2
0
'
071020102040
SCALE IN FEET
60
W
e
g
m
a
n
s
It
h
a
c
a
-
W
in
e
S
t
o
r
e
_
S
it
e
P
la
n
.d
w
g
GENERAL NOTES
RESTORATION NOTES
LIMIT OF NEW PAVEMENT RESTORATION
LEGEND
CONCRETE PAVING (TRUCK LOADING AREA/WALKWAY)
4.
3.
2.
1.
WITH ASPHALT FILLER (NYSDOT MATERIAL SPEC. 702.0700).
NEW-TO-EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT JOINTS SHALL BE SEALED
BE FLUSH WITH THE EXISTING ADJACENT AREA THAT IS TO REMAIN.
ASPHALT SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A SMOOTH FINISH AND SHALL
CUT FULL DEPTH, SO THAT ALL LINES ARE STRAIGHT AND TRUE.
AREA. THE PERIMETER OF THE DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE SAW
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE DAMAGED OR EXCAVATED
ARE DISTURBED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR
WHEN ADJACENT ASPHALT, CONCRETE OR PAVING STONE AREAS
HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED.
OF TOPSOIL, SEED AND MULCH AND SHALL BE WATERED UNTIL A
ALL DISTURBED UNSURFACED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE FOUR INCHES
MATERIALS, AND STONES LARGER THAN 1 INCH IN SIZE.
TREE ROOTS PIECES OF ASPHALT AND OTHER EXTRANEOUS
SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED AND FREE OF GRASS CLUMPS,
FOUR INCHES OF THE FINISHED SURFACE. ON-SITE MATERIAL
ON-SITE MATERIAL MAY BE USED TO BACKFILL THE AREA WITHIN
WHEN RESTORING LAWN AREAS ADJACENT TO NEW CONSTRUCTION,
OF THE OWNER.
CONSTRUCTION MUST BE RESTORED IN KIND TO THE SATISFACTION
THE ADJACENT AREAS DISTURBED OR DAMAGED DURING
SITE DATA
24'/30'
20'/30'
1 SPACE/500 S.F.= 30
15,200 S.F.*
30
MATCH EXISTING, TYP,
LIMIT OF PAVEMENT,
MATCH EXISTING, TYP.
LIMIT OF PAVEMENT,
1
7
'
2
2
'
1
9
'
18
'
18'24'18'18'24'18'
9
'
2
4
'
3
0
'
2
0
'
R
EXISTING CURB, TYP.
CURB, MATCH
END PROPOSED
EXISTING CURB, TYP.
CURB, MATCH
END PROPOSED
LAWN
LAWN
36'
1
0
'
7
'
1
0
'
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
T
Y
P
.
DRIVE AISLE SIZE (MINIMUM/FIRE LANE)
PARKING STALL SIZE
BUILDING
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
PARKING SETBACKS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT (ALONG ST 13)
BUILDING SETBACKS
MAX. BUILDING COVERAGE
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
ZONING REQUIREMENTS
CURRENT ZONING: SOUTH WEST ZONING DISTRICT (SW-2)
RETAIL SITE AREA: 1.7 ACRES (75,200 SQ. FT.)
CURRENT SITE AREA: 17.7 ACRES (771,513 SQ. FT.)
8.5'x18' - 90° (MIN.)
5 FT
5 FT.
5 FT.
5 FT.
20 FT.
N/A
15' MIN. - 34' MAX.
60%
5 STORIES
REQUIRED
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, TYP.
EXISTING CURB
MATCH
6
'
6
'
12'
1
6
'
11'
14
'
14'
26'
9'x18' (90°)
13 FT.
N/A
52 FT.
26 FT.
N/A
42 FT.
34 FT.
21%
2 STORIES
PROPOSED
9'
18
'
2
4
'
18
'
TYP.
T
Y
P
.
T
Y
P
.
T
Y
P
.
17'
21'
17
17
34 3A
3B
3C
3D
STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION
HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION
STANDARD DUTY CONCRETE SIDEWALK
HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE
NEW CURB GRANITE CURB
(SHEET 6 of 16)
S
IT
E
P
L
A
N
ANY WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
BE REQUIRED BY THE SITE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE START OF
A HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY SHALL
CATCH BASIN WITHIN THE PAVEMENT AREA.
A CONCRETE APRON SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND EACH EXISTING
AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK
COMPLETED.
BY CODES AND/OR THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY ARE
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT ALL
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE INCURRED.
AND IRRIGATION COMPONENTS INTENDED TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING LANDSCAPING
MAY 1, 2014" WITH ALL CURRENT ADDENDUMS.
ENGINEERING, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
SPECIFICATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS, OFFICE OF
REFERENCES TO NYSDOT STANDARDS SHALL MEAN THE "STANDARD
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE BUILDING AT ALL
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
AND SATISFACTORY MANNER AS APPROVED BY THE WEGMAN'S
PUBLIC ADJACENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS, IN AN ADEQUATE
PROVIDE FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY OF THE GENERAL
WILL INSURE THE LEAST OBSTRUCTION TO TRAFFIC AND SHALL
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT THE WORK IN A MANNER THAT
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
WEGMANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR AS SPECIFIED BY WEGMANS
CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH WEGMANS
DATED AUGUST 25, 2010.
BY C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. TITLED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP AND
PLANS WERE PREPARED FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY COMPLETED
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
18'
9
'
3
B
3B
3A
3
A
3C
3C
TYP.
GRANITE CURB,
(SEE DETAIL ON DWG NO. CD-1)
CONCRETE STAIRS WITH RAILING,
3D
DRAINAGE INLETS, TYP.
CONCRETE APRON AROUND
3D
C-3
BIKE RACK
PROPOSED
MATCH BUILDING MATERIALS
DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL TO
FLOOR AREA IN THE BUILDING.
SQUARE FEET OF NET
1 SPACE FOR EACH 500
RETAIL STORE:
PARKING
13
74'
R
10
'
R
5
0
'
R
10'R10'R
3'R
5'R
5'R
20'R 1 0 '
R
3'R
20'R
4
'
5
'
8
'
4
3
.
8
'
33.9'
24.1'
7
.
5
'
6
'
7.5'10.3'
7.5'
DUTY PAVEMENT, TYP.
LIMIT OF HEAVY
17.3'
10'R
3'R
5'R
5 '
R
5 '
R
5
'
R
5'R
5'R
13
R
E
T
A
IL
S
T
O
R
E
SIGNS
AND "ONE-WAY"
"DO NOT ENTER"
LOCATION
DUMPSTER
EXISTING CURB, TYP.
CURB, MATCH
END PROPOSED
LAWNLAWN
LAWN
LAWNLAWN
LAWN
LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, TYP.
8
'
10
/
2
0
/
14
1313
52
2 HANDICAP
84 REGULAR
2"
6"
6"
5"
5"
5"
5"
TSB
TSB
TSB
SSP
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
TSB
10" Maple
Elec.Box
8"
8"
8"8"8"8"8"8"8"
2"
T
S
B
TSB
NY
S
E
G
2
7
TSB
TMH
TMH
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
8" Maple
10" Maple
10" Maple
10" Maple
8" Maple
SSP
TSB
8" Maple
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
in
e
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
Ar
e
a
Landscaped Area
Landscaped Area
L.P.
L.P.
L.P.
Property Line
Area
Landscape
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
MAPLE
8"
L.P.
Maple
8"
31
NYSEG
22
NYSEG
R
ig
h
t
-
o
f
-
Wa
y
L
in
e
PROPOSED RETAIL
15,700 SFE
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
MAIN
153.5'
10
1.
3
'
EXIT
EMERGENCY
ENTRANCE
DELIVERY
ROOM
MECH/ELEC.
DOCK RAMP
LOADING
DOCK
LOADINGLPLP
LP
LP
LP LP
LP
LP
LP
LP LP
LP
LPLP
LP
LP
LP
ENCLOSURE
DUMPSTER
U
N
A
U
T
H
O
R
IZ
T
IO
N
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
IO
N
O
R
A
D
D
IT
IO
N
S
T
O
T
H
IS
14
5
S
E
C
T
IO
N
7
2
0
9
A
N
D
A
R
T
IC
L
E
14
7
S
E
C
T
IO
N
7
3
0
7
.
D
R
A
W
IN
G
IS
IN
VIO
L
A
T
IO
N
O
F
S
T
A
T
E
E
D
U
C
A
T
IO
N
L
A
W
A
R
T
IC
L
E
STORE NO.
DWG NO.
IT
H
A
C
A
-
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
:
D
R
A
W
IN
G
:
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
15
0
0
B
R
O
O
K
S
A
VE
N
U
E
P
.O
.
B
O
X
3
0
8
4
4
C
O
P
Y
R
IG
H
T
2
0
0
8
B
Y
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
IN
C
.,
A
L
L
R
IG
H
T
S
R
E
S
E
R
VE
D
.
T
H
E
S
E
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
A
R
E
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
O
F
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
IN
C
.
N
O
D
U
P
L
IC
A
T
IO
N
IS
P
E
R
M
IT
T
E
D
W
IT
H
O
U
T
W
R
IT
T
E
N
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
F
R
O
M
W
E
G
M
A
N
S
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
IN
C
.
C
IV
IL
E
N
G
IN
E
E
R
IN
G
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
G
R
O
U
P
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
,
N
E
W
Y
O
R
K
14
6
0
3
-
0
8
4
4
O
W
N
E
R
:
F
IL
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
N
:
S
C
A
L
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
D
E
S
IG
N
P
R
IN
T
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
:
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
IO
N
(
5
8
5
)
-
4
6
4
-
4
6
0
0
D
A
T
E
B
ID
D
IN
G
R
E
V
IE
W
P
E
R
M
IT
N
O
.
R
E
VIS
IO
N
D
A
T
E
N
E
B
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
F
O
O
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
C
(
5
8
5
)
5
1
2
-
2
0
0
0
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
,
N
Y
1
4
6
0
4
2
5
5
E
A
S
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
800-962-7962
Dig Safely.
New York
Dig With Care
Respect the Marks
Confirm Utility Response
Wait The Required Time
Call Before You Dig
digsafelynewyorkwww..org
M
R
H
5
0
0
S
O
U
T
H
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
IT
Y
O
F
IT
H
A
C
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
O
F
T
H
O
M
P
K
IN
S
,
S
T
A
T
E
O
F
N
E
W
Y
O
R
K
1"=
2
0
'
071020102040
SCALE IN FEET
60
W
e
g
m
a
n
s
It
h
a
c
a
-
W
in
e
S
t
o
r
e
_
S
it
e
P
la
n
.d
w
g
R
E
T
A
IL
S
T
O
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
LEGEND
6" Deciduous
LAWN AREA
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
AREA OF MULCH
PROPOSED TREE\SHRUB
15% KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BLEND (USE AT LEAST 3 CULTIVARS)
20% PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (ALL-STAR OR DSAHER II)
65% FINE FESCUS (RELIANT OR BILJART)
4-5 LBS/1,000 S.F.
SEED SCHEDULE
S
o
u
t
h
M
e
a
d
o
w
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
N
.
Y
.
S
.
R
o
u
t
e
1
3
)
B & B
B & B
KEY SIZE ROOTBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QUANT.
PLANT LIST
DECIDUOUS TREES
Pyrus Calleryana 'Aristocrat'ARISTOCRAT FLOWERING PEAR
RED OAKQuercus Rubra
2 •"-3" CAL.
2 •"-3" CAL.
PLANTING NOTES
REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS ON DWG. NO. C-21.
THE FIELD. REMOVE UPON STABILIZATION OF GROUND COVER.
MEASURES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND AS REQUIRED IN
CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL
THIS CONTRACT.
ON SITE WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE IDENTIFIED WORK OF
ITEMS DAMAGED OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OR DISTURBED
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT.
MOWING, AND PROTECTION FROM TRAFFIC UNTIL FINAL
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL WORK INCLUDING WATERING,
MINIMUM OF 1 YEAR TIME FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL PLANTED MATERIALS A
INSPECTION AT DELIVERY BY THE OWNER.
IN REASONABLE TIME. ALL PLANTS ARE SUBJECTED TO
PLANTS SHALL BE DELIVERED ONLY AS THEY CAN BE INSTALLED
STANDARD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
PRUNE TREES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND
HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS APPEARS.
MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4". THESE AREAS SHALL BE
ALL DISTURBED LAWN AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TOPSOIL
MULCH.
ALL PLANT BEDS TO RECEIVE THREE INCHES (3") OF HARDWOOD
TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS
CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY
BODIED FOR SPECIFIC SPECIES.
MIDDLE TO UPPER END OF THAT RANGE. PLANTS TO BE FULL
PROVIDED SHALL BE A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THAT RANGE
WHERE PLANT SIZE IS INDICATED AS A RANGE, THE PLANTS
OF NURSERYMEN, INC.
NURSERY STOCK PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
GUIDLEINES ESTABLISHED BY THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR
ALL NEW PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
PC
TC
QR
48
C-6
(SHEET 9 of 16)
MU
L
C
H
MU
L
C
H
PLANTED BY WEGMANS
ANNUALS TO BE
L
A
W
N
L
A
W
N
2
QR 19
TC
3
TC
LAWN
LAWN
2
AC
1
PC
1
PC
AC 6 2 •"-3" CAL.B & BAcer x. fremanii 'Cetzam'CELEBRATION MAPLE
PERENNIALS
CONTAINERHP
SHRUBS
Texus x.m. 'Chadwickii'CHADWICK'S YEW 24" HT.B & B
4
AC
PLANTED BY WEGMANS
ANNUALS TO BE
EF 17WINTERCREEPER 24" HT.B & B
VJ 16JUDD VIBURNUM B & B
Euonymus fortunei
MATURE SIZE
3' HT./3' SPR.
Viburnum juddi 6' HT./6' SPR.
CS 8Cornus sericea RED OSIER DOGWOOD 4' HT./10' SPR.#5 CONT.18-24" SPR.
24-30" HT.
IM 6 #5 CONT.18-24" SPR.Ilex x meserveae BLUE HOLLY 8' HT./6' SPR.
VT 2 8' HT./8' SPR.Viburnum trilobum AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH 24-30" HT.
45' HT./20' SPR.
40' HT./25' SPR.
80' HT./30' SPR.
3' HT./5' SPR.
48
6
EF
5
EF
3
IM
2
CS
2
CS
2
CS
3
IM
2
CS
3
TC
3
SA
3
EF
4
VJ
3
EF
4
VJ
2
VT
3
SA
AUTUMN JOY STONECROPSedum Spectabile 'Autumn Joy'NO. 2 CONTAINERSA 2' HT./2' SPR.6
Hemerocalis x.NO. 1 18" HT./2' SPR.
12
HP
12
HP
12
HP
8
RP
4
VJ
RP 16 24" HT.3' HT./3' SPR.Rosa pink knockout PINK KNOCKOUT ROSE #5 CONT.
B & B
2
QR
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE ISLAND
PLANTING ENLARGEMENT DETAIL NO. 1
NO. 1
ENLARGEMENT DETAIL
REFER TO PLANTING
NO. 1
ENLARGEMENT DETAIL
REFER TO PLANTING
MULCH
1
PC
LAWN LAWN
L
A
W
N
DAYLILY (YELLOW)
2
PC
2
PC
1
PC
5
TC
5
TC
5
TC
5
TC
LAWN
LAWN LAWN LAWN
MULCH
6
TC
6
EF
10
CS
6
EF
11
VT
10
/
2
0
/
14
2
QR
2
QR
8
8
ITH
A
C
A
R
E
T
A
I
L
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
R
E
N
D
E
R
I
N
G
S
LEFT/NORTH ELEVATION
FRONT/WEST ELEVATIONRIGHT/SOUTH ELEVATION
BACK/EAST ELEVATION
ALUMINUM COPING
TYP.
DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL TO MATCH
BUILDING MATERIALS
SPLIT FACE BLOCK
DOMINE BROWN WITH
STONE WINDOW SILL
SCREEN WALL
FIELD BRICK
AMHERST BLEND
EIFS COLOR 2
112 SANDWOOD BEIGE
ELEV. +29’-2”
TOP OF HI PARAPET
ELEV. +26’-6”
TOP OF LO PARAPET
ELEV. +11’-6”
BOTTOM OF AWNINGS
ELEV. +0’-0”
ALUMINUM COPING
TYP.
STANDING SEAM ROOF
#07 REDWOOD
SPLIT FACE BLOCK
DOMINE BROWN WITH
STONE WINDOW SILL
EIFS COLOR 2
112 SANDLEWOOD BEIGE
FIELD BRICK
AMHERST BLEND
TENANT SIGNAGE
ALUMINUM COPING
TYP.
DECORATIVE SCREEN
WALL TO MATCH
BUILDING MATERIALS
EIFS COLOR 4
3945 FUDGE
TENANT SIGNAGE
ALUMINUM COPING
TYP.
EIFS COLOR 4
3945 FUDGE
STANDING SEAM ROOF
#07 REDWOOD
LOADING DOCK
BEYOND
SPLIT FACE BLOCK
DOMINE BROWN WITH
STONE WINDOW SILL
STOREFRONT ENTRY DOORS
FIELD BRICK
AMHERST BLEND
EIFS COLOR 2
112 SANDLEWOOD BEIGE
ELEV. +29’-2”
TOP OF HI PARAPET
ELEV. +26’-6”
TOP OF LO PARAPET
ELEV. +11’-6”
BOTTOM OF AWNINGS
ELEV. +0’-0”
TENANT SIGNAGE
ALUMINUM COPING
TYP.
FIRE EXIT DOOR
FIELD BRICK
AMHERST BLEND
SPLIT FACE BLOCK
DOMINE BROWN WITH
STONE WINDOW SILL
EIFS COLOR 4
3945 FUDGE
STANDING SEAM ROOM
#07 REDWOOD
EIFS COLOR 2
112 SANDLEWOOD BEIGE
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Declaration of Lead Agency 500 S. Meadow St.
Wegmans 15,700-SF Retail Building
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for a 15,700-SF retail building to be located at 500 S. Meadow
Street in the City of Ithaca, by Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. applicant and owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 15,700-SF retail building. The project site is a
17.7-acre parcel that contains an existing 115,000-SF retail building (Wegmans), associated
parking, and an access road from Meadow Street. The new building will be located on an
existing 201-space parking area. Project development will include parking for 88 cars, internal
sidewalks, crosswalk striping, lighting, and landscaping. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning
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: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Site Plan Approval for the proposed
project, to be located at 500 S. Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca.
Moved:
Second:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
CEQR 500 S. Meadow St.
Wegmans 15,700-SF Retail Building
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for
Site Plan Approval for a retail building, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 15,700-SF retail building. The project site is a
17.7-acre parcel that contains an existing 115,000-SF retail building (Wegmans), associated
parking, and an access road from Meadow Street. The new building will be located on an
existing 201-space parking area. Project development will include parking for 88 cars, internal
sidewalks, crosswalk striping, lighting, and landscaping. The project is in the SW-2 Zoning
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: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on October 28, 2014 declare itself 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, did on
October 28, 2014 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form
(FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2 prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled
“Topographic Survey for Wegmans Food Market, 500 South Meadow Street (Sheets 1 and 2),”
prepared by C.T. Male Associates, P.C and dated 8/25/11; “Overall Master Site Plan (C-1),”
“Demolition Plan (C-2),” “Site Plan (C-3),” “Utility Plan (C-4),” “Grading and Erosion Control
Plan (C-5),” “Landscape Plan (C-6),” “Lighting Plan (C-7),” “Construction Phasing Plan (C-8),”
and “Construction Details 1−5 (CD-1, CD-2, CD-3, CD-4, & CD-5),” dated 9/7/14 and all
prepared by T.Y. LIN International; 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:
Vacancies: 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Preliminary & Final Approval 500 S. Meadow St.
Wegmans 15,700-SF Retail Building
City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval
for a retail building, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a 15,700-SF retail building. The project site is a 17.7-acre parcel that
contains an existing 115,000-SF retail building (Wegmans), associated parking, and an access road from Meadow
Street. The new building will be located on an existing 201-space parking area. Project development will include
parking for 88 cars, internal sidewalks, crosswalk striping, lighting, and landscaping. The project is in the SW-2
Zoning 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 Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding
or carrying out the action, did on October 28, 2014 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the
project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 (B) (4) and 176-12
(A) (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on October 28, 2014, 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 28, 2014 review
and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2
prepared by Planning staff; plans entitled “Topographic Survey for Wegmans Food Market, 500 South Meadow Street
(Sheets 1 and 2),” prepared by C.T. Male Associates, P.C and dated 8/25/11; “Overall Master Site Plan (C-1),”
“Demolition Plan (C-2),” “Utility Plan (C-4),” “Grading and Erosion Control Plan (C-5),” “Lighting Plan (C-7),”
“Construction Phasing Plan (C-8),” and “Construction Details 1−5 (CD-1, CD-2, CD-3, CD-4, & CD-5),” dated
9/7/14; and “Site Plan (C-3),” “Landscape Plan (C-6),” “Conceptual Renderings,” dated 10/20/14 and all prepared by
T.Y. LIN International; “Material Board, Wegmans – Proposed Outparcel,” dated October 2014; and other application
materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did on October 28, 2014 determine the proposed
project will result in no significant impact on the environment, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: 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. Submission for approval by the Planning Board of building materials, and
ii. Written approval from the City Stormwater Management Officer, and
iii. Written approval from the City Fire Chief, and
iv. Bike racks to be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Declaration of Lead Agency 114 Catherine Street
Apartments
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
October 28, 2014
WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board for an apartment building to be located at 114 Catherine Street
in the City of Ithaca, from Jagat Sharma, applicant for Nick Lambrou, owner, and
WHEREAS: The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story apartment building, with a footprint of
1,974 SF and containing one 5-bedroom and two 6-bedroom units. The project site contains an
existing apartment building and a 13-space parking lot with 7 in the back yard (to remain) and 6
spaces in the front yard (to be replaced by the new building). The project also includes the
removal of one curb-cut. The project is in the CR-4 Zoning District, which requires either: (1)
off-street parking in accordance with §325-45.5 F; or (2) full compliance with the NYS Building
Code or Residential Code for new construction and a TDM Plan approved by the Planning Board.
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. The project
requires DESIGN REVIEW, and
WHEREAS: this 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: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review the
Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and
funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the action of Site Plan Approval for the proposed
project, to be located 114 Catherine Street in the City of Ithaca.
Moved:
Second:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: 1