HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-15 P&D Board - Project Review Commmittee Meeting AgendaTO:
City of Ithaca Project Review Committee (Planning &Development Board)
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — 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 & Econ. Development – 607-274-6550 | Community Development/IURA – 607-274-
6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org E-Mail: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
FROM:Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner
DATE:August 13,2015
SUBJECT:Agenda for Project Review Committee Meeting:T UESDAY,AUGUST 18,2015
Meeting scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.in Third Floor Conference Room (behind Common Council Chambers),City
Hall,108 E.Green St.Please call Charles Pyott at 2746550,if you cannot attend or you require additional information.
9:30 Project:MixedUse Housing
Location:210 Hancock St.(former Neighborhood Pride store)
Applicant:Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS)
Anticipated Board Action(s)in August:Consideration of Preliminary &Final Site Plan Approval
Project Description:The applicant proposes to redevelop the entire 2.01acre parcel currently containing
the vacant former grocery store,a smaller commercial building,and a 110space parking lot.The applicant
proposes to construct 12 twostory townhomes and a fourstory approximately 65,000SF mixeduse
building with approximately 53 apartments and three groundfloor commercial spaces,totaling
approximately 10,000 SF.Approximately 64 parking spaces will be providedapproximately 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 Cityowned rightof 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 nonvehicular bike and pedestrian path.The project is
in the B2a 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 B2a Zoning District and received the required variances on 81115.
This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,§1764 (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.
10:00 Project:Retail Building
Location:222 Elmira Rd.,Ithaca Plaza
Applicant:Marx Realty &Improvement Co.,Inc.
Anticipated Board Action(s)in August:Consideration of Preliminary &Final Site Plan Approval
Project Description:The applicant proposes to construct a onestory,3,400SF retail building with 49 parking
spaces and associated landscaping,walkways,and other site improvements.The 6.1acre site contains an
existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces.The site is predominantly paved;however,development
requires removal of 0.2 acres (8.712 SF)of existing vegetation along the north property line,contiguous to
the drainage area.The project is in the SW2 Zoning District,which allows a maximum building setback of 34
feet from the curbline.The project received an Area Variance for the proposed 70’setback on 81115.The
applicant has proposed a 4’tall architectural wall along a portion of the frontage.This is an Unlisted Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on July 28,
2015.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
1 of 3
10:15 Project:Four MultiFamily Dwellings “Pocket Neighborhood”
Location:215221 Spencer St.
Applicant:Noah Demarest,STREAM Collaborative,for PPM Homes
Anticipated Board Action(s)in August:Determination of Environmental Significance &Recommendation to
BZA
Project Description:The applicant proposes to build a new multifamily “pocket neighborhood”on a hillside
site between W.Spencer St.and W.Cayuga St.The project will include four buildings,each of which will be
3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total).A 12car parking area is proposed with access off W.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 R3b Zoning
District and requires a variance for parking.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.
10:30 Project:State Street Triangle Project
Location:301 E.State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd.
Applicant:Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage
Anticipated Board Action(s)in August:Public Hearing &CEQR Discussion
Project Description:The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759acre site with an 11story,116’tall,
288,845GSF mixeduse building,with approximately 12,341 SF of new groundfloor retail space,2,029 SF of
which is anticipated to be a restaurant.Upper floors will have a mix of unit types (1bedroom/1bath to 5
bedroom/4bath)for a total of 240 units with approximately 620 bedrooms.The targeted market is
primarily college students.The ground level includes a loading/delivery/trash area with vehicular access
provided from N.Aurora Street.35 parking spaces will be eliminated 45 loading/delivery spaces are
proposed.The project is in the CDB120 Zoning District and requires Design Review.This is a Type I Action
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B.(1)(h)[4],(k)and (n),
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),§617.4 (6.)(iv)and (11),and is subject to
environmental review.
11:00 Project:Educational Building
Location:209215 Dryden Rd.
Applicant:Trowbidge Wolf Michaels for 209215 Dryden Associates,LLC
Anticipated Board Action(s)in August:Public Hearing,Determination of Environmental Significance,&
Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval
Project Description:The applicant proposes to build a sixstory/80 foot tall education and office building on
the 12,301SF project site.The building will house the Cornell Johnson School of Management Executive
Education Program,which will be a tenant of the building;so the building and site will therefore remain a
taxable property.The building will include classrooms,meeting rooms,staff and faculty offices,and a large
atrium for public assembly and to provide streetlevel active use. The building is in the MU2 Zoning District
and requires variances to be incompliance with district regulations.The project has received Design Review.
This project is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),
§1764 B.(1)(n),and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA),§617.4 (6.)(11),for which
environmental review was completed and a Negative Declaration issued on July 28,2105.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
2 of 3
11:30 Zoning Appeals
o #2993,Special Temporary Permit,607 Utica St.
o #2994,Area Variances,215221 W.Spencer St.
o #2996,Sign Variance,171 E.State St.(Center Ithaca)
o #2998,Area Variances,201 W.Clinton St.
o #3001,Area Variance,171 E.State St.(Center Ithaca)[CCHP]
o #3002,Area Variances,325 W.Buffalo St.
11:45 Adjournment
cc:Mayor Svante Myrick &Common Council
Dr.Luvelle Brown,Superintendent,ICSD
Jay Franklin,Tompkins County Assessment
ACCESSING ONLINE DOCUMENTS
SitePlan Review &Subdivision ApplicationDocuments
(&Related Materials)
SitePlan Review applicationdocumentsare accessible electronically via
the“Document Center”on the City web site
(www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Planning &
Development”>“Site Plan Review Project Applications,”andin the
relevantyear/month folder.Subdivision applicationmaterialscan be
similarlylocated,but in the “Subdivision Applications”folder.
ZoningAppeals
ZoningAppeals are accessible electronically via the “Document Center”on
theCity web site (www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Board
ofZoning Appeals”>“Zoning Appeal Applications,”andin the relevant
year’sfolder.
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 daybefore the meeting.
“An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”
3 of 3
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400
www.twm.la
August 11, 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: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Review Package
Dear JoAnn:
We are pleased to provide the attached exhibits and supplemental information in support of Ithaca
Neighborhood Housing Services’ proposed Redevelopment of 210 Hancock Street.
The attached updated and supplemental information and graphics illustrate engineering, site, and
architectural concepts for the project. We trust that the Board will find this information helpful as it evaluates
the project for Preliminary and Final Site Plan review.
Project Background
The proposed development sponsor is Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) who purchased the
vacant property in 2014. INHS sees this project as an important opportunity to advance their mission to
provide high quality, desirable, and affordable housing for the community.
For almost 40 years, INHS has been working to provide affordable housing in Ithaca. With the proposed
project, the community has an opportunity to expand affordable and accessible housing options to a
number of individuals and families. The composition of the proposed development includes housing and
commercial space. This mixed-use approach is fundamental to the core concepts of neighborhood and
community development.
The proposed project seeks to utilize the 98% impervious largely vacant former commercial property to
construct a sustainable multi-use development with greatly improved greenspace, access to community
resources, access to existing transit routes, and within walking distance to schools and downtown
employment opportunities.
Community Engagement
At the project outset, INHS committed to an ambitious community engagement process. INHS held four
community meetings attended by more than 250 people, over 70% of whom live in the adjacent Northside
and Fall Creek Neighborhoods. All of the information provided at the meetings can be found on the project
website: www.210Hancock.org.
The series of public meetings resulted in a vision and master plan for the redevelopment of the site,
summarized by six guiding principles demonstrated by the current proposed site plan:
2 of 5
1. Make Lake Avenue low traffic and provide pedestrian amenities along the creek.
2. Make green space more accessible to the wider community.
3. Provide lower scale development along the creek.
4. Minimize surface parking.
5. Locate commercial space along Hancock Street.
6. Provide a mix of uses – commercial and residential.
Additionally, the project is consistent with existing community plans, including the City’s Northside Vision
Plan from 2001, and the current draft City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan from June of 2015. Notably, the
project will contribute to the widely acknowledged community need for affordable housing on an infill site
with excellent access to community services and multimodal connections.
Greenspace Connections
Throughout the public engagement process and beyond, the community recognized the potential to expand
greenspace on the project site and improve access to existing parks, trails, and greenspace surrounding the
site including Cascadilla Creek, Conley Park, and the developing Cayuga Lake Trail network.
By converting the adjacent portions of Lake Avenue and Adams Street to park space, the project provides
great community greenspace benefits. The reimagined Lake Avenue allows for a functional expansion of the
existing creek walk in Conley Park for pedestrian and bicyclists. The proposed playground in the footprint of
Adams Street will be contiguous with Conley Park and diversify the public park amenities offered in the
neighborhood.
Zoning Variances
On August 11th The Board of zoning Appeals approved the variances requested by the applicant.
Foundation System
The multifamily apartment building on First and Hancock is proposed to be supported by vibratory driven
piles as illustrated by the attached updated Foundation Plan Diagram. The proposed foundation system is a
function of soil conditions identified via a geotechnical investigation. The summary Geotech Report was
submitted February 13, 2015 to the Planning Board appended to the Full Environmental Assessment Form.
As requested, we have further reviewed the proposed foundation system for the multifamily building and
have determined that we can further reduce and mitigate community impacts from the foundation installation
activities. The attached report, by Elwyn and Palmer, Consulting Engineers dated July 24, 2015, provides
more detail on these changes.
With the evolution of the architectural and structural designs, efficiencies have been identified wherever
possible to minimize the pile system to the greatest extent practical. The current required number of piles is
168. Additionally, the detailed review of the pile system and soil conditions found that a vibratory method of
steel pile installation will be the most appropriate foundation system for the project. This change, from an
impact driven steel pile system, will be far less disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood with respect to
3 of 5
noise and vibration. In lieu of the familiar percussive ‘ping’associated with the impact drive steel piles, the
noise is similar to other engine-generated construction equipment.
Furthermore, we have reviewed published data and guidelines to identify methods for monitoring noise and
vibration from construction activities. Due to the soil conditions on site, vibration from the pile installation is
anticipated to remain well below any damage thresholds for residential buildings. Nonetheless, INHS will
include in the project’s bid specifications, requirements for building condition surveys prior to construction,
vibration monitoring during construction, and will require strict compliance with the City ordinance for
construction operations. Pre-condition building surveys and vibration monitoring during construction are
recommended to be done by a third party engineering firm specializing in these services, following NYSDOT
published guidelines.
We trust that this information and the switch to a vibratory process will substantially resolve the Board’s
concerns regarding pile driving.
Townhouse Design
INHS proposes the development of 12 townhomes on the east side of the site. The townhomes will be
designed to complement the character of the existing homes in the Northside Triangle. The townhomes at
210 Hancock will utilize architectural details in the porches and roof lines as well as a mix of materials and
colors to provide architectural diversity. Architectural precedent will include homes built in the late 19th/early
20th century and characterized as “tudor”, “arts and crafts”, “American four square” etc. The goal is to
design the 12 townhomes as if they were built over time with some unifying features that make them feel part
of the larger 210 Hancock community.
The initial program for these townhouses was that they would be sold; however, as the project has evolved
and INHS has received more detailed construction costs, we have determined that it may be infeasible to
build and sell all of the townhouses at reasonable pricing. As a result, a number of them will now likely be for
rent. This change requires that the first floor of each rental unit be fully visitable by a person with a mobility
impairment. To meet this requirement and be one-foot above base flood elevation as required, the rental
units will be designed with small lifts and/or accessible ramps.
While this change is a consideration for operational, financial, and community composition purposes, the
architectural expression of the buildings, heights, and massing remains similar to designs previously
reviewed by the Planning Board. The design intent of the exterior of the buildings - including architectural,
roofline, color, and material diversity – remains consistent.
Subdivision and Phasing
The initial design, with for-sale townhomes, required Subdivision to separate the INHS owned and operated
multi-family/ mixed-use building along First Street from the owner-occupied townhomes along Cascadilla
Creek. If some portion of the townhomes are now financed along with the mixed-use building, Subdivision
will still be required but the exact Subdivision line is unclear. INHS will come back for formal Subdivision
approval when this line is finalized. Having some of the townhomes as rental units will reduce the need for
multiple phases over many years; a minimum of two phases is still likely however.
4 of 5
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to call. We are looking
forward to presenting the project at the August 25, 2015 meeting and are requesting preliminary and Final
Site Plan approval at the same time.
Sincerely,
Peter Trowbridge, RLA, FASLA
Principal
5 of 5
Exhibits:
1. Site Plan Rendering, August 11, 2015
2. Context Diagram, August 11, 2015
3. L101 Demolition Plan, August 11, 2015
4. L201 Layout Plan, August 11, 2015
5. L301 Grading Plan, August 11, 2015
6. L401 Planting Plan, August 11, 2015
7. L501 Site Details, August 11, 2015
8. L502 Site Details, August 11, 2015
9. Boundary and Topographic Survey, October 28, 2014
10. C102 Final Utility Plan, August 11, 2015
11. C103 ESC Plan – Demo and Construction Plan, August 11, 2015
12. C104 ESC Plan - Stabilization, August 11, 2015
13. C201 Details, August 11, 2015
14. Photometric Plan, July 15, 2015
15. Architectural Plans, August 11, 2015
16. Architectural Elevations 1 , August 11, 2015
17. Architectural Elevations 2, August 11, 2015
18. Context Aerial View, August 11, 2015
19. Shadow Study, August 11, 2015
20. Aerial View and Precedent, August 11, 2015
21. Perspective Views 1, August 11, 2015
22. Perspective Views 2, August 11, 2015
23. Perspective Views 3, August 11, 2015
24. Cornice Details, August 11, 2015
25. Townhouse Elevations 1, August 11, 2015
26. Townhouse Elevations 2, August 11, 2015
27. S100 Foundation Plan, August 11, 2015
28. Proposed Foundation System – 210 Hancock Street, Additional Information Pile Driving Memo, by
Elwyn and Palmer, PLLC, dated July 24 2015
29. Construction Route and Contractor Parking, August 11, 2015
4
5
2
2
7
6 7
1
1
3
3
3
3
8
1. COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR WITH RESIDENTIAL ABOVE2. COVERED PARKING WITH RESIDENTIAL ABOVE3. TOWNHOMES4. BIKE PARKING5. BUS STOP 6. INTERIOR STREET7. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN WAY8. PLAYGROUNDLEGEND
4
0 30’60’MIXED USE BUILDINGSMULTIFAMLY BUILDINGSTOWNHOMESKEYSCALE
HANCOCK STREET
ADAMS STREET ALICE MILLER WAYCONLEY
PARK
LAKE AVENUE ROWCASCADILLA CREEKWILLOW AVENUEFIRST STREET210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
SITE PLAN
AUGUST 11, 2015
HANC
OCK ST
REETADAMS ST
REET
MADIS
O
N ST
REETFRANKLI
N ST
REETNYS ROUTE 13TOMPKINS STREETADAMS ST
REETFRANKLI
N ST
REET
LEWIS STREET
JAY STREET
CAYUGA STREETL
A
K
E
A
V
ENU
EWI
L
LOW
A
V
ENU
E AUBURN STREETF
IR
S
T
S
T
TH
IRD
S
T DE
Y
S
TR
E
E
T
S
E
COND
S
T
C
A
S
C
A
D
I
L
L
A
C
R
E
E
K
CAYUGA LAKE
YATES STREET
HANCOCK STREETADAMS STREET
MADIS
O
N ST
REETFRANKLIN STREETNYS ROUTE 13TOMPKINS STREETADAMS STREETFRANKLIN STREET LEWIS STREETJAY STREETCAYUGA STREETLAKE AV
ENU
EWILLOW AVENUE AUBURN STREETFIRST STTHIRD ST DEY STREETSECOND ST CASCADILLA CREEKCAYUGA LAKE YATES STREET
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
CONTEXT DIAGRAM
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
AUGUST 11, 2015
C100EXISTINGCONDITIONSPROGRESSPRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:08/11/2015CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
210 HANCOCK STREET2014055/E14-30TRT/DAHREVISION SCHEDULENAMEDATE
C101UTILITYPLANPROGRESSPRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:08/11/2015CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
210 HANCOCK STREET2014055/E14-30TRT/DAHREVISION SCHEDULENAMEDATE
C102ESC PLAN-DEMOLITIONANDCONSTRUCTIONPROGRESSPRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:08/11/2015CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
210 HANCOCK STREET2014055/E14-30TRT/DAHREVISION SCHEDULENAMEDATE
C103 ESC PLAN-STABILIZATIONPROGRESSPRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:08/11/2015CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
210 HANCOCK STREET2014055/E14-30TRT/DAHREVISION SCHEDULENAMEDATE
C201DETAILSPROGRESSPRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:08/11/2015CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES
210 HANCOCK STREET2014055/E14-30TRT/DAHREVISION SCHEDULENAMEDATE
0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.20.20.30.20.20.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.20.10.10.30.40.40.40.30.20.10.40.50.60.50.40.20.10.60.70.80.60.40.20.10.81.01.00.70.40.10.10.10.11.21.41.30.90.30.10.10.10.11.61.91.60.90.30.10.10.10.12.12.51.70.60.20.20.10.12.32.61.50.50.20.20.20.10.12.42.61.30.50.30.20.10.10.12.84.51.80.40.30.30.20.10.12.95.31.70.80.60.40.20.10.10.14.14.01.81.10.70.40.20.10.14.93.91.81.30.80.50.20.10.14.83.91.91.40.90.50.20.10.14.74.12.01.30.80.50.20.10.13.35.51.91.20.80.50.20.10.13.25.42.30.80.60.50.20.10.10.13.13.52.00.90.60.30.20.10.10.13.23.62.31.10.60.30.20.10.10.13.43.92.81.30.50.20.20.10.10.13.44.03.11.60.40.20.20.20.13.44.02.91.40.50.20.20.10.10.13.33.72.41.20.60.30.20.10.10.13.13.31.91.00.70.30.20.10.10.13.34.82.20.80.60.40.20.10.10.10.13.35.61.91.10.80.50.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.14.24.22.01.30.90.60.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.10.15.03.91.91.40.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.40.40.20.10.14.73.81.91.41.00.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.30.61.61.60.50.20.10.14.64.01.81.30.80.50.30.20.10.10.10.20.52.06.24.81.20.30.10.10.13.45.11.61.10.80.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.62.76.17.41.40.40.10.10.13.05.01.80.60.50.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.30.81.92.20.80.30.10.10.12.73.01.50.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.50.50.30.20.10.10.10.12.62.81.60.80.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.10.12.62.92.00.90.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.12.32.72.21.30.60.40.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.20.12.32.52.21.50.80.40.20.20.20.40.50.40.20.10.10.10.10.30.40.10.10.10.20.30.71.61.60.50.23.53.02.21.60.90.30.20.30.50.91.81.20.40.20.10.10.10.30.71.70.10.10.10.20.62.26.44.61.10.310.04.62.51.70.90.40.30.40.93.28.33.40.80.20.10.10.10.20.72.77.50.10.10.10.30.72.96.17.21.30.48.05.62.71.60.80.40.30.41.04.55.84.80.90.20.10.10.10.20.83.75.90.10.10.10.20.40.82.02.20.74.74.12.51.30.70.40.30.30.51.12.41.70.50.20.10.10.10.20.40.92.20.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.50.50.30.23.13.32.10.90.60.40.30.20.20.40.60.50.30.10.10.10.10.10.30.50.10.10.10.30.40.40.30.20.20.20.20.12.72.81.60.80.50.50.30.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.10.30.61.51.40.50.20.20.10.10.12.93.71.70.70.50.40.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.62.16.44.31.10.30.20.10.13.05.31.90.70.70.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.73.26.17.31.30.30.10.10.10.13.84.81.81.20.80.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.40.92.32.40.70.30.10.10.14.94.01.91.30.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.60.50.30.10.10.14.73.81.91.51.00.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.20.20.10.10.15.04.01.91.40.90.60.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.14.04.82.01.30.90.50.20.10.10.13.35.72.10.90.80.50.20.10.10.10.13.34.32.10.90.60.30.20.10.10.10.13.23.42.11.10.60.30.20.10.10.13.64.02.71.20.50.30.20.10.10.13.64.23.11.40.40.20.20.20.13.64.23.01.40.40.20.20.10.13.43.82.51.20.50.30.20.10.10.13.23.42.01.00.60.30.10.10.10.13.44.92.20.80.60.40.20.10.10.13.35.71.91.10.80.50.20.10.10.14.24.32.01.30.80.50.20.10.15.03.91.91.40.90.50.20.10.14.73.81.81.30.90.50.20.10.14.63.91.71.20.70.40.20.10.13.35.01.51.00.60.40.20.10.12.94.91.60.40.40.40.20.10.12.62.91.30.40.30.20.20.10.12.42.51.30.50.20.20.10.10.12.32.61.60.50.20.20.20.11.82.11.60.80.20.10.10.10.11.31.61.30.90.30.10.10.10.11.01.11.10.80.40.10.10.10.10.70.80.80.70.40.10.10.50.60.60.50.40.20.10.30.40.50.40.30.20.10.20.30.40.30.30.20.10.10.20.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.511111111111111111111111111111111155555550.510.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.10.10.20.40.81.71.30.40.20.10.10.10.10.20.41.00.20.20.30.72.87.73.80.90.30.10.10.10.10.31.04.00.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.10.10.10.10.31.25.70.10.10.20.10.10.10.10.20.51.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.40.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.115515555555555
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
DN
DN
DN
DN
REF.DWDN
DN
UP
WWWREF.
DW
REF.
DW
221 SF
STAIR
COMMERCIAL
SPACECOMMERCIAL
SPACE
RESIDENTIAL
ENTRY
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
1 BED
ONE
BEDROOM
TWO
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
TWO
BEDROOM
COR
ONE
BEDROOM
STAIR
ONE
BEDROOM
ONE
BEDROOM
TWO
BEDROOM
STAIR
1/16" = 1'-0"06/17/152014055 AP100HANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENT210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES PLANS
1/16" = 1'-0"1 PRES - F1 FINAL
1/16" = 1'-0"2 PRES - F2 FINAL
August 11, 2015
PLANS
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
ELEVATIONS
August 11, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
ELEVATIONS
August 11, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
SCIENCENTER
39.11 FEET TALL
FORMER ITHACA
CLOCKWORKS BUILDING
38 FEET TALL
LAKEVIEW MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES
40 FEET TALL
August 11, 2015
CONTEXT
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
Spring & Fall EquinoxSummer Solstice
Winter Solstice
Morning Shading Afternoon Shading
Morning Shading Afternoon Shading
Morning Shading Afternoon Shading9am10am11am2pm3pm4pm9am10am11am2pm3pm4pm
9am10am11am 2pm 3pm 4pm
SHADOW STUDY
August 11, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
Fall Creek Gimme Coffee Building
Existing Site
Proposed Site
Hickey’s (ICCC Building)Concept DiagramSciencenter
AERIAL VIEW AND PRECEDENT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ENTRANCECO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
BUI
L
D
I
N
G
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
ECOMMERCIAL BUILDING ENTRANCERESIDENTIAL
BUILDING ENTRANCE
“BUILDING 4 - RED BRICK”
“BUILDING 3 - WHITE BRICK”
“BUILDING 2 - BROWN BRICK”
“BUILDING 1 - RED BRICK”
DESIGN STRATEGIES
1. BREAK BUILDING INTO SMALL-
ER SUB “BUILDINGS” TO REDUCE
MASSING.
2. ORGANIZE POINTS OF ENTRY
AND CONNECTIONS THROUGH
BUILDING AT BREAKS
3. PUSH AND PULL MASSING OF
“BUILDINGS” TO DEVELOP VARI-
ETY ALONG STREET FACADE AND
CREATE DEFINED EXTERIOR
SPACES
4. USE MATERIALITY TO CREATE
INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY FOR EACH
“BUILDING”PUSH
PUSH
PULL MAJOR ACCESSMAJOR ACCESSBREA
K
BREA
K
BREA
K
August 11, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
View 1 - From Corner of Hancock Street and Lake Avenue
View 2 - From Hancock Street looking down Interior “Street”
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
August 11, 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
August 11, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
FIRST FLOOR
392' - 6"
AVERAGE GRADE
388' - 7 1/2"
ADJUSTABLE GALVANIZED
STEEL 1' JACKPOSTS, BOLTED
TO TOP OF CONCRETE WALL
16" COLUMN W/ NO.4 BAR @12"
OC, INDEPENDENT OF BUILDING
STRUCTURE
4' - 4 3/4"1' - 4"
5' - 8 3/4"
PAINTED GALVANIZED STEEL
C9X15, BOLT TO JOIST
3' - 10 1/2"4' - 0 15/32"1' - 9 3/4"PAINTED GALVANIZED PERFORATED
CURROGATED STEEL PANEL
BOLTED TO ANGLE
PAINTED GALVANIZED STEEL L4X4
BOLTED TO CONCRETE COLUMN3' - 6"3' - 0"PAINTED GALVANIZED STEEL
RAILING WITH PERFORATED METAL
PANEL, BOLTED TO C9X15
COMPOSITE WOOD DECKING
ON PT WOOD FRAMING
3/4" = 1'-0"
06/17/15
2014055
AP506
HANCOCK STREET
REDEVELOPMENT
210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING
SERVICES
PATIO SECTION
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
View 5 - From Interior Street, mid block looking West
August 11, 2015
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment
05/18/15
2014055
AP501
HANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENT
210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES CORNICE AT RED BRICK BUILDING
8" PARAPET CAP
SINGLE BRICK REVEAL
SINGLE BRICK COURSE
SOLDIER COURSE REVEAL
05/18/15
2014055
AP502
HANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENT
210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES CORNICE AT BROWN BRICK BUILDING
METAL PARAPET CAP
SUNSHADE
PANEL REVEAL
8" SILL
BRICK REVEAL
05/18/15
2014055
AP503
HANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENT
210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES CORNICE AT WHITE BRICK BUILDING
METAL PARAPET CAP FLUSH SOLDIER COURSE FROM TOP
OF WINDOW TO PARAPET CAP
August 11, 2015
CORNICE DETAILS
CORNICE AT RED BRICK BUILDING CORNICE AT BROWN BRICK BUILDING CORNICE WHITE BRICK BUILDING
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment August 11, 2015
TOWNHOUSE ELEVATIONS
NORTH ELEVATION
INTERIOR STREET ELEVATIONS
210 Hancock Street Redevelopment August 11, 2015
TOWNHOUSE ELEVATIONS
SOUTH ELEVATION
LAKE STREET ELEVATIONS
FOUNDATION NOTES:1.PILE TYPE: 12"Ø PIPE PILES CONCRETE FILLED2.APPROXIMATE LENGTH = 90'3.PILE REACTIONS ARE AT SERVICE LOADS (UNFACTORED)WIDTHDEPTHTOP BARSBOTTOM BARSSTIRRUPS5'-6".2'-6".2 PILE CAP5'-2".3 PILE CAP5'-6".5'-6".2'-6".1 PILE CAP2'-0" THICK(TYP)5 - #4 EACH WAYBOT MAT8 - #4 LONG DIRECTIONBOT MAT5 - #5 SHORTDIRECTION BOT MAT6 - #5 THREEDIRECTIONS BOT MATTYPEGB1 18"WIDTH DEPTH TOP BAR24" (4) #7GB2GRADE BEAM SCHEDULEBOT. BAR(4) #7STIRRUPS#4 @ 12"24" 24" (4) #8GB312" 24" (4) #6(4) #8(4) #6#4 @ 12"#4 @ 12"D.GD.GC.3C.3A.5A.5B.AB.AA.AB.D-2PAVED PARKINGSURFACEA.4-4A.4-4A.DC.CA.2A.2B.2-8B.2-8B.CB.C10' - 6"4' - 0"31' - 6"12' - 0"7' - 10"20' - 2"20' - 0"8' - 0"19' - 0"18' - 11 7/8"18' - 0 1/8"1' - 4"14' - 8"7' - 0"6' - 9"21' - 9"21' - 9"21' - 9"10' - 0"17' - 0"15' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 11 3/4"18' - 9 1/4"D.BD.BB.4B.4B.6B.6D.CA.3-6A.3-6B.1B.1B.1-9B.1-9B.3-7B.3-7B.5B.5A.FD.AD.B-7D.B-7C.2-3C.2-3C.1-6C.1-6S.2C.1C.1D.5D.5D.2-7D.2-7D.1-9D.1-9D.1D.1B.BD.3D.3PAVED PARKINGSURFACE8" SLAB W/ #6 AT 8" O.C.E.W. TOP AND BOT.8" SLAB W/ #6AT 8" O.C. E.W.TOP AND BOT.40 KIPS 40 KIPS 40 KIPS40 KIPS80 KIPS 160 KIPS130 KIPS90 KIPS90 KIPS60 KIPS80 KIPS 40 KIPS140 KIPS 150 KIPS110 KIPS90 KIPS70 KIPS 70 KIPS60 KIPS100 KIPS130 KIPS130 KIPS130 KIPS 130 KIPS70 KIPS60 KIPS70 KIPS60 KIPS100 KIPS50 KIPS40 KIPS40 KIPS40 KIPS65 KIPS40 KIPS40 KIPS60 KIPS20 KIPS10 KIPS80 KIPS 90 KIPS 90 KIPS 70 KIPS40 KIPS50 KIPS70 KIPS70 KIPS70 KIPS90 KIPS90 KIPS90 KIPS65 KIPS 70 KIPS60 KIPS60 KIPS90 KIPS70 KIPS90 KIPS80 KIPS 90 KIPS10 KIPS10 KIPS90 KIPS70 KIPS80 KIPS60 KIPS40 KIPS50 KIPS70 KIPS 70 KIPS 50 KIPS55 KIPS60 KIPS60 KIPS40 KIPS 50 KIPS 45 KIPS60 KIPS50 KIPS70 KIPS70 KIPS70 KIPS50 KIPS50 KIPS40 KIPS30 KIPS30 KIPS60 KIPS100 KIPS70 KIPS30 KIPS40 KIPS 40 KIPS 50 KIPS45 KIPSD.E-617' - 0"31' - 0"8' - 0"6' - 0"17' - 0"31' - 0"27' - 0"19' - 10"GB1GB2GB2GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1 GB1GB1 GB1GB2 GB2GB2GB1GB2GB2GB2GB2GB1GB2GB2GB1GB1 GB1 GB1GB1GB1GB1GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1 GB1GB1GB2 GB2GB2GB2 GB2 GB2GB2 GB2 GB2GB1 GB1 GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB3GB2GB2GB2GB2GB1 GB1 GB1 GB1GB3GB1 GB1 GB1GB1GB1GB1 GB1 GB1GB3GB3GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB1GB3GB3GB2GB2GB3GB3GB3GB3GB1GB2GB2GB2GB2GB3GB3GB3GB3GB3GB3GB2GB2GB2GB2GB3GB3GB3GB3GB3GB2GB2GB2GB2GB3GB1GB1GB1 GB1GB1GB1GB1GB3GB3GB3GB3GB3 GB3GB3GB3GB1GB1GB2 GB2 GB2GB2GB2 GB2GB2GB2 GB2 GB2GB2GB2 GB2GB2GB2GB1 GB1 GB1GB2GB1GB1GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2D.4D.410 KIPS30 KIPS20 KIPS20 KIPS20 KIPS20 KIPSGB1GB12' - 0"29' - 6"4' - 0"10' - 0"2' - 6"1' - 9"6' - 3"11' - 0"43' - 3"31' - 9"14' - 0"6' - 0"C.A10' - 10 1/2"EQEQEQEQD.FS.1B.FA.ED.EB.EA.CD.DA.BD.2C.2B.3A.4B.2A.3-8A.3C.DC.BGB3GB3GB3GB3GB3GB312" CONCRETE WALLGB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB2GB1PRESSURE TREATED2x8 DECK FRAMINGAT 1'-4" O.C.1'-4" DIAMETER DRILLED PIERFOOTINGS SPACED 6'-0 ONCENTER AT EAST WOOD DECK2'-0" DIAMETER DRILLED PIERFOOTINGS SPACED 6'-0 ONCENTER AT SOUTH AND WESTWOOD DECKGB2 GB2 GB2 GB2
WALL
10" FND
10" FROST WALLABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:213 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850www.ElwynPalmer.com607.272.5060Elwyn Palmer&CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLLC8/4/2015 9:13:00 AMS100FOUNDATIONPLAN8.11.2015210 HANCOCK STREET, ITHACA, NY 14850ITHACA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICESHANCOCK STREET REDEVELOPMENTProject NumberAuthor 1" = 1'-0"4Typical Grade Beam Section 1" = 1'-0"5Pile Cap DetailRevision ScheduleRev.NumberRev.Descr.Rev.Date 3/32" = 1'-0"1UPPER FIRST FLOOR PLAN
&
213 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Elwyn Palmer
Consulting Engineers, PLLC 607.272.5060 T 607.272.5065 F
www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 1 of 2
July 24, 2015
Mr. Joseph Bowes
Senior Real Estate Developer
Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
115 West Clinton Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Proposed Foundation System – 210 Hancock Street
Additional Information on Pile Driving
Dear Mr. Bowes:
This letter is to provide additional information regarding the foundation system for the
proposed development project at 210 Hancock Street. We understand that both the Planning
and the Development Board (“PDB”) and the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) have asked for
more information about pile driving associated with the construction of the project.
As you are aware, the subsurface exploratory work done at this site by our firm encountered a
compressible layer of soft to very soft soils from 6’ to a depth of 85’. This is typical of Ithaca’s
alluvial plain at the south end of Cayuga Lake. Our recommended foundation system for the
four story building proposed for this site includes end bearing steel piles driven to suitable
bearing in the more dense sand and gravel layer at a minimum depth of 85’.
Based on concerns expressed by both the PDB and the BZA, the project team has evaluated
alternative foundation systems. Our conclusion is that steel piles will be the least disruptive to
the neighborhood surrounding the project site. Other foundation systems such as concrete
caissons or a compensated mat foundation would result in increased construction duration
and greatly increased earthwork and concrete placement. Thus, construction and
accompanying neighborhood disruption would last longer with these methods and there would
likely by more fugitive dust emissions with increased earthwork.
In terms of pile driving, we have optimized our design over the past several weeks, and have
achieved a reduction in pile count. Currently, 168 piles will be required for the proposed
project. We understand that the BZA has asked whether there is any reduction in the number
of piles if the height of the mixed use building is reduced to 40 feet. After careful evaluation,
we have determined this revision would result in a minor dead load reduction, with no change
in the number of piles required. Pile depth for the type of piles proposed is a function of soil
conditions, therefore pile depth would also not be affected.
In addition to the above, you have asked us to evaluate an “As of Right Option” - something
that would not require height or parking variances from the BZA. Specifically, the four story
mixed use building would be reduced to three stories but an additional three story building
consisting of 23 residential units would be added to the project site. Our analysis of this
alternate resulted in a pile count reduction of 14 piles (168 piles reduced to 154) associated
with the reduction of the mixed use building from four stories to three stories and a pile count
increase of approximately 60 piles associated with the additional three story building. Thus,
with the “as of right” option, total pile count would increase by 46 piles over the proposed
project plan to a total of 214 piles.
& E P
www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 2 of 2
Based on expressed concerns with noise and vibration from pile driving, we have further
evaluated different methods of pile installation. Impact driving is the most common method of
installation. However, the striking of the piles to drive them into the ground can create
concern relative to noise and vibration. Our findings are that the soft soils which will be
encountered are conducive to the vibratory method of pile installation. Vibratory pile
installation replaces the impact hammer of traditional pile driving with oscillatory counter
weights which vibrate the steel pile into the ground by reducing friction at the soil/pile
interface. While there is still noise associated with this operation, the noise comes from the
hydraulic power pack which powers the vibrator. This noise is similar to other construction
equipment on-site, rather than the intermittent “ping” of impact driven piles.
Regarding vibration from pile driving operations, vibratory driven piles have also been shown
to greatly reduce earth vibrations. Vibration from pile driving is also largely a factor of local
soil conditions. For this site, vibration from either impact driven or vibratory driven piles is not
expected to be a problem due to the 85’ layer of compressible soils. Published data shows
that expected typical earth vibrations from impact driven piles 25’ from the pile installation
location are well below the damage threshold for residential buildings. Vibration from vibratory
driven piles at this same distance should be approximately ½ of this amount (reference
“Design Guidance for Building Condition Survey and Vibration Monitoring (Non-Blasting)” NYS
DOT EI 05-045, 12/23/05).
Please note that for either impact driven or vibratory driven piles, it will be necessary to
perform dynamic testing to verify that the required pile bearing capacity is achieved. Dynamic
testing consists of striking a test pile with an impact hammer after it has been installed to its
final bearing depth. This testing will need to be done on a small number of piles, in the range
of six to ten (out of 168), and will require three to five impacts per pile. Such testing can be
done during mid-day hours when noise sensitivity is typically at its lowest.
In addition to using the vibratory method of installation, to ensure that noise and vibration from
pile driving operations are properly controlled, we will include in our bid specifications
requirements for building condition surveys prior to construction, vibration monitoring during
construction, and will require strict compliance with the City ordinance for construction
operations. Pre-condition building surveys and vibration monitoring during construction are
recommended to be done by a third party engineering firm specializing in these services,
following NYSDOT published guidelines.
Please contact me if you have any questions on the above or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely
Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC
David L. Elwyn, P.E.
Partner
Attachment
To:SUPERSEDED BY
EB 07-009
EFFECTIVE 3/2/07
New York State
Department of
Transportation
ENGINEERING
INSTRUCTION
EI
05-045
Title:DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY AND VIBRATION
MONITORING (NONBLASTING)
Distribution:
Manufacturers (18)
Local Govt. (31)
Agencies (32)
Surveyors (33)
Consultants (34)
Contractors (39)
____________( )
Approved:
/s/ Robert L. Sack__________________
Robert L. Sack, Deputy Chief Engineer
(Research)
23DEC05
Date
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION:
!This Engineering Instruction (EI) is effective beginning with projects submitted for the letting of
September 7, 2006.
!This EI does not supersede any previous issuances.
!The information transmitted by this issuance will be included in a future revision to the Highway
Design Manual, Chapter 9.
PURPOSE:The purpose of this EI is to issue design guidance for the use of the special specification for
building condition survey and vibration monitoring (nonblasting).
TECHNICAL INFORMATION:
!The revised special specification for building condition survey(s) and vibration monitoring is not
intended to be used as a pay item for vibration monitoring during blasting operations. Monitoring
vibrations generated via blasting operations are controlled by the Standard Specifications §203-3.05 Rock
Excavation C. Explosive Loading Limits and are described in the Geotechnical Engineering Manual
(GEM-22)Procedures for Blasting, issued under EB 05-012.
!Nonblasting construction operations (e.g., excavation, pavement removal, backfill and compaction,
demolition, driving of piles and sheeting, etc.) may damage or distress adjacent sensitive buildings,
structures, or utilities. The special specification is intended to assess the condition of the building,
structure or utility prior to these adjacent construction operations to develop a condition baseline. A
companion special specification includes requirements for monitoring vibrations to record the intensity of
the adjacent construction operation(s). This information may be used to resolve disputes.
!The building condition survey special specification was revised under EI 05-044.
TRANSMITTED MATERIALS:
Attached is the design guidance for the use of the special specification for building condition survey and
vibration monitoring (nonblasting).
BACKGROUND:Vibration monitoring is a specialized procedure for recording, analyzing, and
quantifying vibrations resulting from construction operations. Vibration monitoring specialists utilize a
seismograph, an instrument that records vibrations in the earth, to examine the extent of vibrations from a
EI 05-045 Page 2 of 2
REFERENCES:
!Construction Vibrations and Their Impact on Vibration-Sensitive Facilities, Hal Amick and Michael
Gendreau, Colin Gordon & Associates, Presented at ASCE Construction Congress 6, February 22, 2000.
!Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Harris Miller Miller
& Hanson Inc., Final Report April 1995.
!Standard Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibrations
AASHTO Designation: R 8-96 (2004).
CONTACT:Questions or comments regarding this issuance should be directed to Randy Romer of the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau at (518) 457-4714,rromer@dot.state.ny.us.Questions or comments
regarding the technical aspects of the special specification should be directed to Doug Hadjin of the
Geotechnical Engineering Bureau at (518) 457-4728,dhadjin@dot.state.ny.us.
EI 05-045 Page 1 of 4 L 09/07/06
BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY AND VIBRATION MONITORING (NONBLASTING)
General
The revised special specification for building condition survey(s) and vibration monitoring is not
intended to be used as a pay item for vibration monitoring during blasting operations.
Monitoring vibrations generated via blasting operations are controlled by the Standard
Specifications §203-3.05 Rock Excavation C. Explosive Loading Limits and are described in the
Geotechnical Engineering Manual (GEM-22) Procedures for Blasting, issued under EB 05-012.
Nonblasting construction operations (e.g., excavation, pavement removal, backfill and
compaction, demolition, driving of piles and sheeting, etc.) may damage or distress adjacent
sensitive buildings, structures, or utilities. The special specification for building condition survey
and vibration monitoring is intended to assess the condition of the building, structure or utility
prior to these adjacent construction operations to develop a condition baseline. The special
specification includes requirements for monitoring vibrations to record the intensity of the
adjacent construction operation(s). This information may be used to resolve disputes.
Design Considerations
neering Geology
Section. Ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can
damage structures, but can be within the range of human perception in buildings very close to
the site. A possible exception is the case of old, fragile buildings of historical significance where
special care must be taken to avoid damage. The construction activities that typically generate
the most severe vibrations are blasting and impact pile driving
(2). If, due to project constraints,
construction activities are scheduled adjacent to such sensitive buildings, the following is
recommended:
Adjacent Sensitive Structure
The assessment of the potential for damage is two-fold. Vibrations propagate from a piece of
construction equipment through the ground to a distant vibration-sensitive receiver
predominately by means of Rayleigh (surface) waves and secondarily by body (shear and
compressional) waves. The amplitude of these waves diminishes with distance from the source.
This attenuation is due to two factors: expansion of the wave front (geometrical attenuation)
and dissipation of energy within the soil itself (material damping)
(1). Material damping in soil is a
function of many parameters, including soil type, moisture content, and temperature. The
designer will assess the potential for damage by determining the assumed geometrical
attenuation or distance from the source to the receiver.
The most common generic model of construction vibrations as a function of distance was
developed by Wiss (1981)
(1),asshowninFigure1:
Nonblasting construction operations (e.g., excavation,pavement removal, backfill andgp(g p
compaction, demolition, driving ofpiles and sheeting,etc.)may damageordistressadjacentpgpg)ygj
sensitive buildings, structures, or utilities. The special specification for building condition surveygppgy
and vibration monitoring is intended to assess thecondition of the building, structure or utilityggy
prior to these adjacent construction operations to develop a condition baseline. The specialpj p p p
specification includes requirements for monitoring vibrations to record the intensity of thepq g
adjacent construction operation(s). This information may be used to resolve disputes.
ggy
Ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that canyy
damage structures, but can be within the rangeof human perception in buildingsvery close toggppgy
the site. A possible exception is the case of old,f ragile buildingsof historical significance whereppgg g
special care must be taken to avoid damage. The construction activities that typically generate
2)driving(2
pg
the most severe vibrations are blasting and impact pile
EI 05-045 Page 2 of 4 L 09/07/06
Figure 1
(1)Construction Vibrations as a Function of Distance, after Wiss (1981)
Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of
construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity levels
(2).It
should be noted that there is a considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from
construction activities. However, reasonable estimates may be made for a wide range of soil
conditions. For example, the upper range of an impact pile driver at a distance of 7.6 m from
measured data is 38.6 mm/sec (1.518 in/sec) PPV
(2). To compare these results with Figure 1,
using the distance from the source as 7.6 m and the construction activity of a diesel pile driver,
the resulting peak particle velocity is approximately 40 mm/sec.
The 7.6 m distance from the source to the receiver and the resulting measured PPV of
38.6 mm/sec is a good starting limit for the designer to use. As a comparison, the designer
should note that for blasting operations, the Standard Specifications §203-3.05 Rock
Excavation C. Explosive Loading Limits
the maximum quantity of explosives allowed per delay period shall be based on a maximum
onsidering the impact
pile driver ranks high on the list of construction activities producing ground vibrations yet yields
a PPV of 38.6 mm/sec at a distance of 7.6 m, this buffer is a conservative distance.
25'
20 mm/s (.8"/s) max at 25'.
Damage threshold is
approx 50 mm/s (2"/s)
EI 05-045 Page 3 of 4 L 09/07/06
If the project requires a construction activity adjacent to a sensitive structure closer than the
7.6 m limit described above or the designer has a concern with the existing condition and/or
there is an historic significance,
Engineering Geology Section.
Consultation
If the designer determines the adjacent distance may pose a potential for damage, consultation
ology Section is recommended.
Site specific information will be reviewed, including material damping (soil type, moisture
content and temperature) and appropriate maximum allowable peak particle velocity (PPV) to
be assigned to the structure.
Action
If the Designer and Engineering Geologist determine the need for the special specification, the
following Special Note entitled Vibration Criteria shall also be included in the contract
documents:
VIBRATION CRITERIA
o the close proximity of the existing (buildings, structures,
utilities)located _____________________. Excavation, pavement removal, backfill and
compaction, demolition, driving of piles and sheeting, and any other construction operations
shall be conducted in a manner which will not damage or distress any of the above, including
but not limited to, adjacent buildings and structures, historic structures, utilities or tunnels. Any
by the Contractor
at no additional cost to the State.
The Contractor is required to engage the services of a New York State licensed Professional
Engineer to conduct a condition survey of the existing (buildings, structures, utilities)indicated
in Table 1 of this Special Note and an experienced vibration monitoring Consultant to measure
peak particle velocities prior to, and during construction operations. The Contractor must
perform all work in a manner that will limit construction vibration at the specified locations to
within the limits set forth within this Note or the limits determined by his Professional Engineer,
whichever is less.
The Contractor is required to engage the services of aNewYorkState licensed Professionalqgg
Engineer to conduct a condition survey of the existing(buildings,structures,utilities)indicatedgyg(g)
in Table 1of this Special Note and an experienced vibration monitoringConsultant to measurepp g
peak particle velocities prior to, and during construction operations. The Contractor mustpp p g p
perform all work in a manner that will limit construction vibration at the specified locations topp
within the limits set forth within this Note or the limits determined by his Professional Engineer,
whicheveris less.
EI 05-045 Page 4 of 4 L 09/07/06
Table 1
Structure & Location Vibration Measurement Locations Maximum Allowable
Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV)
(Closest point on the dwelling to
construction operation)
(At a distance from a given pile to
model the distance from closest pile to
the building: monitoring impact at that
distance to make adjustments to pile
driving operation as work proceeds
toward building)
(etc.)
(5.08 cm/sec (2.0
in/sec))
(2.54 cm/sec (1.0
in/sec))
(etc.)
(1)Construction Vibrations and Their Impact on Vibration-Sensitive Facilities, Hal Amick and Michael Gendreau, Colin Gordon &
Associates, Presented at ASCE Construction Congress 6, February 22, 2000.
(2)Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., Final Report
April 1995.
SAMPLE TABLE 1. A SIMILAR TABLE WILL BE COMPLETED
AND INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
Construction Route and Contractor Parking
Revised 5/18/15
Project
Site
Contractor Parking
and staging
NOTE: Contractors will be prohibited from parking on Lake Avenue, due
to its narrow width and potential conflict with existing parking during
construction. Contractor parking will be on-site or in a nearby surface
lot if one can be located. Sidewalks on Hancock and first Streets will be
kept open during construction except for short-term temporary
closures necessary for public safety during certain limited aspects of
construction.
COMMENTS:
210 Hancock St.
Project
From:Dick Feldman
Sent:Sunday,July 26,2015 2:41 PM
To:Charles Pyott
Subject:Hancock St.Project
Mr.Pyott,
Could you please send the following text to the members of the Common Council and the Planning Board?Thank
you,
Dick Feldman
We in the Cascadilla Creek Neighborhood are not classist nor racist.We are committed to making our
neighborhood the best place possible for everyone to live and work and raise their families.It is disturbing that
with a few words—“affordable housing”and “densification”—a lot of real issues are being ignored.Quality of life
for all residents of our neighborhood—current and futureis one.Paul Mazzarella,director of the current 210
Hancock Street project told the Ithaca Common Council “from the first our goal was to maximize the number of
units on this site”.A neighbor in the Cascadilla Green housing development across the street from the Hancock
project told me “that’s what they always do,cram as many poor people as possible together”.
We want Ithaca Neighborhood Housing to build affordable housing on this entire empty block in the middle of our
neighborhood,but we need it to be something that suits and enhances the neighborhood.A huge fourstory,
block long building with interior hallways is going to be difficult to relate to.We are used to chatting with our
neighbors on the sidewalk or as we watch our children playing in a park.Where are we going to meet with these
100150 new residents?How are we going to get to know them and make them part of our lives?Good
architecture and good neighborhood planning do not begin with the premise of packing in the maximum number
of units.
The proposed project is not designed for families 80%one bedroom,with no usable yard space,where children
can play and be watched;a massive blocklong fourstory building.The tiny proposed playground,on city
property,is not a factor.
Others have asked that local workers be used in construction,but Ithaca does not have pile driving or steel
construction companies.More appropriate twostory family buildings,like existing duplexes,could be built by
local contractors and workers.
I would suggest the following for 210 Hancock:a 16 unit 2story 1 2 bedroom apartment building with balconies
on the 2nd floor to provide pleasant rental housing.The rest of the property could be a mix of duplexes (like
nearby Mutual Housing/Cascadilla Green)like the original idea that the duplexes could eventually be bought by
residents,and townhouses for families ready to buy now.This would be true mixed housing,suiting the needs of
the people who live there,not just landlord,federal programs and ideologies.
The mayor and most Ithaca politicians have decided Ithaca needs densification –a major change in city policy.
They are very resistant to any questioning of this policy,even though many questions remain.Purposes include
gaining increased political power for the city.How does that benefit current residents?What will the results be
for taxes and city services?For traffic?Open discussion is needed,as large buildings are cropping up all around.
Ithaca has not grown in many years,but is that all bad?Perhaps that’s why Ithaca is so desirable.
From:Jan McCarrick
Sent:Thursday,July 30,2015 11:29 AM
To:Charles Pyott
Subject:[210 Hancock St.INHS Project]
Charles,will you please forward this letter to all members of the Planning Board and also to all members of the BZA?
Thank you.
To my City Representatives:
I was one of only a handful of people who attended a Planning meeting on June 30 to discuss the City's draft
Comprehensive Plan.I went because I was concerned with the changes in the city and especially wanted to follow the
impact on the 210 Hancock St project since I live within 200 feet of this.I was amazed at what I heard at that meeting.
I have tried to ignore it but it has been eating away at me for a month now and I have felt that I have to write this
down.
A city employee claimed that this project was consistent with the recommended density of the neighborhood in the
comprehensive plan,which I disagree with.The Northside Triangle neighborhood already has over 100 units of low
income subsidized housing with hundreds of tenants all within 2 3 blocks of this project.(*See breakdown below)
This housing already exists and makes up a large percentage of the residents of Northside.You will add another 50+
units with probably 50100 more people.This is segregation.When you isolate hundreds of very poor people into a 2
3 block area you are not doing them any favors.My neighbors went doorto door in Cascadilla Green talking to INHS
tenants who live across the street from this proposed project.They spoke with every household and only found one
person who thought that it was a good idea to put more very low income people next door to them.They certainly
did not want a 4story big box apartment building right next door.Our petition asking to deny the zoning variances
has 40 signatures of people who actually live within 200 feet of the project,not ministers looking to increase their
flock or council people who claim to represent us but contradicted almost everyone in the neighborhood who was
allowed to speak.
And why is there no affordable housing in the 11story building proposed for State St.?We were told that 210
Hancock has to be packed with lowincome housing because it is the only developable block in the city.But now there
is a developable block with room for 620 beds in a neighborhood which is truly walkable and where adding affordable
housing would truly diversify the neighborhood.Why is there no affordable housing included in a proposed
development while you are packing the Northside neighborhood with lowincome density?
At the June 30 Planning meeting there was a substantial discussion regarding this Hancock St project,and it concluded
with a casual discussion of whether this neighborhood was tipping the scale against what was a healthy ratio of low
income to middleincome.The comment was even made that "I hope we're not creating a ghetto here",and the
Planning Board members compared this area to West Village where they talked about how the crime rates are high
and the police are afraid to go.Is this the legacy you want to leave?
I came home from this meeting feeling very depressed and I have felt so much anxiety that I have not been sleeping
well.Why was this not followed up?Why was there not a serious discussion?This is not diversity;it is segregation.
The Northside is not a wealthy area to begin with,but there is a balance and it is a friendly and pleasant neighborhood
right now.Please don't tip the scales.
Janice McCarrick
313 Willow Ave
Lowincome housing in the Northside neighborhood:
*70 Federal row housing units (called Northside Housing?),consisting of:
11 2bedroom units;at 3 persons per unit would be 33 people
33 3bedroom units;at 4 persons per unit would be 132 people
26 4bedroom units;at 5 persons per unit would be 130 people
This is clearly an estimate but looks to me like about 300 people.
28 Mutual Housing Duplex (Cascadilla Green?)units.
I don't know the size but will estimate 3 persons per unit for 84 people.
Mental Health Housing apartment complex:
I will estimate 30 units with 30 people.
Several other smaller subsidized housing complexes:
At least 10 units with maybe 4 people each for another 40 people.
My estimate tells me that there are already 450 people living in lowincome subsidized housing in this 23 block area,
mostly along Hancock St.The actual number may be higher.These people at least have healthy living conditions with
back yards and green space and are functioning as good neighborhood citizens.You propose adding another 50+units
with 60100 people packed into a high rise with no individual outdoor space.This is a recipe for disaster and will bring
the number of lowincome subsidized tenants in this small neighborhood to well over 500 and probably closer to 600
people.This is too small a neighborhood to absorb that and is over onehalf mile from the downtown core so it is not
as walkable as has been advertised.
I will add that right after the meeting I wrote to the Planning Department to try to get exact figures for this housing
but never received a response,so I have tried to make my best guesses as to numbers of people.Having visited many
of these units while collecting petition signatures I feel I have some feel for who is living in all this housing.The actual
numbers may be higher.
Janice McCarrick
From:Susan Austern
Sent:Tuesday,August 11,2015 10:32 AM
To:Janice McCarrick
Cc:Common Council &City Staff
Subject:Almost FIVE story apartment building at 210 Hancock St
Dear BZA and Planning Board,
I agree with Janice.I also live within 200 feet of 210 Hancock.I have worked with a
families in Ithaca for 30 years.Please consider a design that is best for families not one
that one that is based on grants,number of units,and money.Please consider atwo
story design such as the one that is written by Beth Feldman in the editorial below.
http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/opinion/2015/08/01/guest viewpoint affordable
housing/30980901/
Other concerns include violation of the Comprehensive Plan which states this area is for
medium density not high density.
If you go ahead with the INHS existing proposal please give us assurances of a clear plan
on how we will be compensated for the damage done to the foundations of our 100
year old houses,
Please do the right thing and do not grant the variances.It appears that the INHS
mission to improve the neighborhood is being overshadowed by the profit motive.
Bigger is not better!
Thank you
Susan Austern
Monday,August 10,2015
To the BZA and Planning Board:
I live directly across the creek from the 210 Hancock St Project,and as such I am a party of standing in this case.
I have registered my opinions at every available meeting since this projects inception,and I have tried to present logical
reasoned arguments.I understand that no one from the public will be allowed to speak at the public meeting on
8/11/2015 in Council Chambers,while INHS will have an extended period to present their side.This is a shame,and I do
not believe it reflects well on the process as a whole.
I will focus on only one point today:Parking
I have mentioned before that the INHS parking studies were deficient,but I have been doing more research and wanted
to bring this into sharper focus:
The "Parking Study"that counted available spaces included Willow Ave.and Lake Street,which may not even qualify as a
legal twoway streets.
Width of Willow Avenue with a parked car:132 inches
Width of car:72 inches
When there is a car parked on Willow it reduces the available lane width to 132 inches,(11 feet),which makes it
impossible for two cars to pass each other.Any marked increase in parking along Willow effectively turns it into a "one
way at a time"street.
There are many excellent references on this topic some of which say:
"Some standards do stand out as reasonable minimums.For emergency access,20 feet is commonly accepted as a
minimum width for two way traffic.In addition,eight feet is necessary for on street parking.Therefore,28 feet is a
widely accepted minimum curb face to curb face neighborhood street width."
Minimum width of a street references:http://plannersweb.com/2013/09/wideneighborhood street part 1/
AND
"The table entries show a 24foot traveled way (12foot lanes)for most conditions."
Federal Highway Administration /Safety /Lane Widths for local urban
roads:http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.cfm
AND FURTHER
National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Street Design Guide Lane Width,which says:"Lane widths
of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street’s safety without impacting traffic
operations."
And:"Parking lane widths of 7–9 feet are generally recommended.Cities are encouraged to demarcate the parking lane
to indicate to drivers how close they are to parked cars."
See NACTO.org at:http://nacto.org/publication/urbanstreet designguide/streetdesign elements/lane width/
For all these reasons I believe that the parking study presented to you by INHS was deeply flawed.For this and other
reasons I have already stated for the record,(see exhibit D I submitted at the previous BZA meeting on 210 Hancock in
July,and have attached again),I request that you please deny the parking,(and height)variance that INHS is requesting.
Respectfully Yours,
Bob Sherman
My name is Bob Sherman, and I have been living at 401 Willow Ave since 1986.
INHS continues to represent the community meetings as an active engagement process with 250 people
speaking – but our input was ignored on the basic issues this variance is considering. The objections we
are raising to these variances are the same ones we raised at the very first engagement, and every
subsequent meeting. There was never any flexibility or negotiation regarding the height problem.
INHS has tried to twist the words and wishes of the homeowners present; we did mention parking under
the buildings, but we never meant INSTEAD of enough spaces. They say that we preferred the
inadequate parking plan they offered. This is wrong - we were not offered real options, and they are
cherry picking facts. The INHS stated "six guiding principles" do not include ANY of the concerns we
raised at each meeting.
Starting around the middle of page 3 of the 6/5/2015 letter and proceeding by the numbers:
"Factors for the board to consider when evaluating a request . . .the board shall take into consideration
the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community by such grant"
1. "Whether granting a variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties" . . .
Height
Would raise the height profile from one to four stories, larger than any building in the surrounding area
by far. To keep with the acknowledged residential character of the neighborhood, a three story building
would be much more appropriate.
The applicant is being disingenuous and misleading in suggesting again that this building is comparable
to the Sciencenter, a functionally two story building that does include a tall peak because of its high
ceiling, the Ithaca Clockworks, another two story building with high ceilings, and the Lakeview building
that IS four stories, however - it is less than half the size of this building at only 29,310 square feet!
Design features are "smoke and mirrors" and do not in any way "minimize mass". This increase in height
will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and we ask that this variance be denied.
Parking and Loading
We should carefully and construct adequate parking now, as it is much harder to add spots later.
The applicant says of their future tenants "many of them won't have cars, reducing demand". This is
pure speculation, despite what their internally generated documents say.
I was excited to hear about the plans for the headstart center - but here again, parking accommodations
are absolutely necessary, particularly around rush hour.
The applicant asserts that the off-street parking provided will meet 100% of the anticipated demand.
Unless you can prohibit tenants from owning cars, 51 spots for 75 people, a busy daycare center and
other retail operations is clearly inadequate, and we are asking that this variance be denied.
Also - The establishment of the Headstart center significantly alters the need for temporary parking for
loading and unloading, and should probably be expanded, and located next to the proposed facility.
2. "Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method
other than a variance" . . .
Height
The applicant cites various factors, related to the 100-Year flood plain and regulations, the cost of
building with different beams impacting cost, and tries to make the case that their projections won't
work without these variances.
I maintain that the flood plain, regulations, and the cost of building materials were clearly factors that
could have been anticipated before beginning this project, and that citing their inability to profit without
these variances should have also been foreseen, and is not the fault or responsibility of this board.
They should have anticipated this issue.
They have said that additional parking will eliminate townhouses, and create more impervious surface -
not true, as the entire site is now impervious. Any changes here are a net gain in this regard, so the
argument holds no weight. Here too they also cite a loss of profits due to needing to change to the
legally required minimum, which they could have anticipated.
3. "Whether the requested variance is substantial"
Height
Yes - this is most certainly substantial
a) They cite "other ~40 foot buildings", that are half the number of stories and less than half the mass in
the case of the largest building cited.
b) This variance would make this the largest building ever constructed by INHS, and dwarf every other
residential building within Fall Creek AND Northside.
Parking and loading
VERY SUBSTANTIAL - because it will profoundly affect the neighborhood. Paying thousands of dollars in
taxes and not being able to park in front of your own house will be incredibly annoying. This will cause
ongoing friction, and businesses that can't provide spaces for their clients will experience problems
staying in business.
There are also several businesses already vying for some of these spots - are they to be penalized in
favor of this new project?
4. "Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on Physical & Environmental
Conditions"
The physical effects of the construction process will likely result in lawsuits for property damage to
foundations caused by the vibrations from pile driving necessary to construct a building of this height.
We are recommending that a bond be setup to cover the cost of these repairs as part of this project.
5. "Whether the need for the variance was self-created"?
Height
INHS admits they created the need for this variance, in full knowledge of the restrictions in place upon
purchase. The mitigating factors offered are the flood plain, (which was a known factor at the time of
purchase), their completely optional desire to place retail space on the first floor, and covered parking.
As the group which actually suggested this, we can confirm that our desire to see less than four stories
far exceeds our desire to see covered parking.
Parking and Loading
INHS admits this too is self created, and offers some mitigating data, but this is only a snapshot of
possible conditions and should not be used to determine permanent parking. We challenge the accuracy
of the 70% availability estimate. This estimate doesn't even allocate a spot for each homeowner, or
more importantly, count the number of cars currently owned by folks who already live here.
INHS closes this argument by citing the community process - we who stand before you were the ones
involved, and did not request inadequate parking, just more concealed parking.
This need for variance was entirely self created – there are no worthy mitigating factors here.
“Board of Appeals may take into consideration the following factors:”
1) INHS represents that the height, parking and loading issues are minor - they are not.
2) Substantial positive change for the neighborhood - this four story building is one story too big, and we
submit this is a negative change for the neighborhood.
3) Handicapped access is admirable, and should be require in all new housing. This should be included in
a three story project too, but is not an argument for four stories.
4) We agree that more affordable housing is needed, but three stories is adequate in this location, and
would contribute to the solution without putting excessive pressure on the neighborhood.
5) While we agree that the green space being added in the very end phase of the project would be
attractive, the very large brick building really doesn't resemble any of the buildings it is supposedly
based on in the least.
From:Janice McCarrick
Sent:Tuesday,August 11,2015 3:02 PM
To:Charles Pyott
Subject:Thoughts on Density from someone who lives within 200 feet of 210 Hancock St.
Charles,can I ask you to forward the following to the members of the BZA and Planning Boards please?
Dear City Representatives,
I know that that there is a huge building boom occurring in the City of Ithaca and I would just like to share
my thoughts on the increasing density.
I know that building housing is profitable for the developers,the builders,the architects,the investors,and
the people who collect the rents.
My question is what about the taxpayers who pay the infrastructure costs?Police,fire,utilities,
government,transportation including more bus services since there is insufficient parking provided for cars
at Ithaca's newest buildings are just a few of the costs.None of this cost is borne by the builders and
developers.They simply reap the profits while the city taxpayers are charged for the associated costs.
Real estate taxes paid by the building owners help somewhat to reduce taxpayer cost,but if there are tax
abatements the full infrastructure cost is paid by the taxpayer.City taxpayers are already paying so much in
taxes that some are being forced out of their homes.Infrastructure is expensive.Why should we allow this?
When we say that there is profit in building housing I think we need to ask who gets the profit?
And if there are associated costs,who pays them?
If the answer really is that the developers,builders and architects make the profits and the taxpayers pay
the costs,then I believe that these new high rise buildings are a net financial loss.Aside from that,they're
ugly,block light,and destroy the charm of Ithaca.
As a comparison,Central Paris has a height cap of 4 stories MAXIMUM and seems to do quite well,certainly
does well in the charm department and doesn't seem to be going bankrupt either.
I also firmly believe that "expanding the tax base"to drive costs down is a complete myth.The cost of
infrastructure always rises faster than the tax income increases,especially when you are giving out tax
abatements.As cities grow they always become more expensive places to live.The least expensive place to
live is a small town;the most expensive is a big city.Unless....the city doesn't spend the money for the
extra services and then it becomes a slum,a less expensive place to live but certainly not desirable.Just look
at the larger cities around us that have "grown their tax base"like Syracuse and Rochester.They have very
expensive neighborhoods,mostly as suburbs,and they have very slummy areas with lots of gangs,crime and
drugs.By its own count,according to the Syracuse police,there are 13 gangs operating in that city.This is
what happens when you increase your density without spending a much greater amount on support
services.The cost of living goes up,not down,with increasing density.
The need for more housing is driven by Cornell U.Cornell students snap up the affordable apartments which
is forcing us to build more subsidized housing.Why is this?Cornell is the largest landowner in the county.
They need to house their own students on their own land.The city shouldn't be turning into a big box
housing jungle to save Cornell money.Cornell has a lot of savvy financial experts.I think that if building and
maintaining and servicing student housing was truly profitable Cornell would be doing the building and
managing themselves.
The Town of Ithaca and Cayuga Heights are also just as geographically close to Cornell as the City of Ithaca is.
Both of these jurisdictions have more wealth,more land and lower taxes than the City of Ithaca and could
far better afford to subsidize additional housing.
Cornell is expected to add 1300 students in the next 5 years,according to Mayor Myrick.Does that mean
that the City of Ithaca is really expected to house all those students?What makes that our responsibility?
So why should the highly taxed,lower income,cramped city feel responsible forpaying for Cornell's
problems?A recent Ithaca Journal article written by Mayor Myrick and Martha Robertson claims that
Cornell can't provide the extra housing because it would take them time to build it.It takes at least as much
time to build an apartment building in the city as it does up the hill.And building on the flats means building
on a flood plain,which is undoubtedly more expensive and difficult.
Cornell students occupy our inexpensive rental housing which displaces our city dwellers and means we
have to build more subsidized housing so they have a place to live.This might generate income for the
builders,but it costs the taxpayers money.This new subsidized housing is built with taxpayer money and
given tax abatements so that little income is provided to the city.And services have to be provided to these
buildings,with the increased infrastructure expenses,resulting in a net loss.
I have enjoyed 35 years of living in a small medium density neighborhood,but I fear those days are over.A
four or five story apartment building is possibly being built across the street from me and I have four years
of jackhammering and pile driving and heavy construction to look forward to,all of which might damage my
shaky hundred year old house.And my tax money is being spent to pay for this.All so that Cornell and the
Town of Ithaca don't have to build and maintain housing.
I don't believe that busing is a relevant part of the discussion.A bus route entirely up on the hill can do just
as well at collecting and delivering people to Cornell as the number 10 bus which is going to be very
overcrowded soon.
Thank you for reading and considering these thoughts.
Janice McCarrick
Page 1 of 3
City of Ithaca
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM(FEAF)Part III
Project Name:Four MultiFamily Dwellings 215221 Spencer St.
Date Created:8/10/15
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to build a new multifamily “pocket neighborhood”on a hillside site
between W.Spencer St.and W.Cayuga St.The project will include four buildings,each of which will
be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total).A 12car parking area is proposed with access
off W.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 R3b Zoning District and requires a variance for parking.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.
IMPACT ON LAND
The project site is in a residential neighborhood and was previously occupied by a building and
gravel parking area.The site is steeply sloped (over 15%over the entire site)with a shale cliff along
W.Spencer St.Existing conditions include small trees,brush,and groundcover,with some larger
trees at the perimeter.Most of the vegetation will be removed;however,the applicant intends to
preserve some larger perimeter trees.There is an existing curbcut and 45 vehicle gravel parking
area off W.Cayuga Street.
The Lead Agency requires the following information to determine any potential impacts:
Geotech report or equivalent information describing soils and foundation type and
construction
IMPACT ON WATER
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON DRAINAGE
The project site is steeply sloped with 100%of the site having slopes over 15%.Construction
activities on steep slopes have the potential to cause erosion of any exposed soils.Appropriate
erosion and sediment control management practices should be implemented and maintained
during site disturbance.
Infiltration on the site is limited due to the presence of bedrock.The project is under review by the
City Stormwater Management Officer.
No impact anticipated.
Page 2 of 3
IMPACT ON AIR
The project site is in a medium density residential neighborhood.Construction is expected to last
approximately 12 months.Airborne dust from construction activities could have a negative impact
during the construction period.The excavation and the preparation of foundations can also create
the potential for increased dust and dirt particles in the air.The applicant should employ the
following applicable dust control measures as appropriate:
Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust.
Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.Re seeding
disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils.
Keeping roads clear of dust and debris.
Requiring trucks to be covered.
Prohibiting burning of debris on site.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON PLANTS &ANIMALS
Most of the vegetation will be removed;however,the applicant intends to preserve some larger
perimeter trees.The applicant has proposed a planting plan which will includes 23 new shade trees.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The project site is in a residential neighborhood and was previously occupied by a building and
gravel parking area.The site is steeply sloped with a shale cliff along W.Spencer St.Existing
conditions include small trees,brush,and groundcover,with some larger trees at the perimeter.
There is an existing curbcut and 45 vehicle gravel parking area off W.Cayuga St.,which will be
expanded and improved to accommodate 12 vehicles.Improvement and expansion of the parking
lot requires a variance.Although this is an existing use concerns have been expressed about the
visual impact of a front yard parking lot on Cayuga St.
The site will be terraced for the construction of the new buildings and to allow pedestrian access
through the site.Due to site topography,numerous retaining walls will be required portions of
which will be up to 7 to 10 feet above grade.The height and scale of the buildings,and height and
positioning of retaining walls,may impact adjacent residents.The applicant has submitted
visualizations,as well as a site section to illustrate the relationship of the project to the
neighborhood context.
The applicant is proposing the following mitigations to address concerns about visual/aesthetic
impact:
Vegetative screen (large evergreen trees and vines)blocking view of retaining walls
Page 3 of 3
Installation of fencing (see Perspectives L001,dated 8/6/15)and landscaping to block view of
parking lot from Cayuga Street adjacent property owners.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON ENERGY
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
The project site is in a medium density residential neighborhood.Construction is expected to last
approximately 12 months.Noise and odors,particularly during foundation work,will temporarily
impact nearby residents.Noiseproducing construction activities will be limited to 7:00 a.m.to 7:00
p.m.,Monday through Saturday.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment has been requested.
No impact anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROWTH &CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
Need verification of utility capacity (Water,Sewer,Stormwater Electric &Gas)
Need Utility Plan
No impact anticipated.
Prepared by:L.Nicholas,Sr.Planner
COMMENTS:
State St. Triangle
Project
From:Michael Hayes
Sent:Tuesday,July 28,2015 7:56 PM
To:Charles Pyott
Subject:[301 E.State St.State St.Triangle Project]
Good evening,
Please provide comprehensive applicable zoning citations for the proposed site.Include
the prior zoning before amendment for the site.
List what body passed the current zoning.Names who proposed the zoning and names
of each member who voted for this zoning,pro,con and abstain.
Please include copies of all Proposer Texas firm,Local stand ups for the Texas firm,all
materials submitted to your Board,Proposer budget proposals,Proposer financials and
list of disclosed Team members associated including their addresses and formal
company names and registrations.
Explain the logic of the Planning Board that requires a firm seeking approval to construct
a duplex to provide parking spaces for occupants while a 600+occupant high density
dorm style student housing can take away 11 parking spots and prove NONE in its
construction.
Please send all materials to;
Michael Hayes
PO Box 3933
Ithaca,NY14852.
From:Sara Schaffzin
Sent:Thursday,July 30,2015 10:20 AM
To:Charles Pyott
Subject:[301 E.State St.State St.Triangle Project]
At your suggestion,I am sending you this op ed that I just submitted to the Ithaca Journal.Please share it
with the city planning board.
Thanks,
Sara Schaffzin
Fall Creek resident since 1990
Like many Ithacans,I was only vaguely aware of the density guidelines enacted by the city to develop the
urban core.But the latest project to "densify"downtownthe 11 story,620 bed apartment building
proposed for the State Street trianglecertainly got my attention,and that of plenty of others,judging by
the standing room only crowd at the recent public information session on this project.And judging by
the comments made during the Q &A,the citizenry is not happy with the direction that downtown
development is taking.
There was plenty of criticism about the nature of this particular projectessentially a gigantic student
housing complex,despite the developer's assurance that anyone would want to live in such a hip,
upscale buildingthe lack of parking for the cars that many of those student tenants are likely to bring,
and the use of tax abatements for the project while failing to account for its cost to the city from
increased demand for city services.But putting those (valid)criticisms aside,why on earth is anyone
even thinking about an 11 story building on a relatively small site in the middle of downtown Ithaca?
The developer thought of it because the city's density zoning allows for buildings of that height,so we
can't blame him.And it's true that we need to encourage development in the city in order to increase
our tax base,which is what motivated the change in zoning in the first place.We had already gotten the
nine story Hilton Garden Inn/Cornell office building (still sticking out among its neighbors like a sore
thumb,if you ask me),and then came the 10 story Marriott,under construction behind the Rothschild
building.Now 11 stories.What's next,Trump Tower?
It's not that tall buildings have no place in a city like Ithaca.Sited like Titus Towers,for example,with
plenty of setback from the street and surrounded by attractive landscaping,a tall building will not
dominate its surroundings.The site for the 11 story building downtown has none of those features.
The scaled architectural renderings of the building are deceptive and make it look like just another
downtown apartment building,but if you stand right in front of the site and look upward at where 11
stories would end,you get a very different picture.And then imagine the shadow that will be cast by
this buildingis this how we want to welcome people to our (finally)newly rebuilt Commons?
So City of Ithaca,please go back to the drawing board and scale back the height limits for downtown
development.This is not Manhattan,or even Brooklynlet's not lose the charm and appeal we have by
trying to outsize ourselves.
Community School of Music & Arts
330 East State/Martin Luther King Jr. St.
Csmakms@aol.com
August 7, 2015
Re: The proposed Triangle project/Trebloc building
Dear Planning & Development Board members,
I attended the planning board meeting on Tuesday, July 28 to listen to the discussion of the
proposed Triangle project/Trebloc building. The information presented raised a number of
concerns. I am speaking for myself, a downtown employee for over 30 years and progra m
director and a faculty member of the Community School of Music & Arts (CSMA) whose
building is directly across State Street from the triangle. While these are my own concerns, I
know that many of our students and faculty share similar concerns and object ions.
It’s understandable that the densification of downtown offers advantages in terms of tax
revenue and increased retail commerce. But I question the benefit that the impact of so many
new apartments and hotels will have on the general local population who frequent downtown.
At this point, I’m sure the project is too far along to be dismissed. That said, I sincerely hope
that the concerns of CSMA’s students, faculty, tenants and near neighbors might prompt some
revision of the plans, at least for the State Street side of the proposed building.
“Safety First!” The idea of extending the sidewalk into the existing traffic corridor is
questionable purely from a safety standpoint. There have been two severe truck accid ents
within the past ten years and it’s unreasonable to believe that no vehicle will ever again get out
of control coming down the hill. Maintaining the width of the street is itself a safety precaution.
Creating another one-way block would also make getting around the east end of downtown
more difficult.
Parking! CSMA and other businesses on our block have already been hard hit by the loss of the
30-plus space parking lot to the west of our building. Both families with children and senior
citizens have not adjusted well to being forced to park at greater distances from the school and
take the time, not to mention the energy, to carry their instruments and art supplies several
blocks from the parking garages. Driving through that former parking lot to drop off students is
an old habit of hundreds of parents and some are now illegally and dangerously stopping in
front of the building to do so. The removal of even more nearby parking spaces on the block
will not be met with gratitude.
I’ve been speaking about people’s habits and the local car culture which generally expects easy
access to one’s destination. It also seems that many college students do own cars these days.
By my rough and conservative estimate, if even one in five of the residents of the proposed
building own cars, that’s at least 80 -100 more cars that need regular parking spaces
downtown. Where is the tipping point with the garages? What is their actual capacity? I hope
this question will be studied carefully.
Combining parking and safety considerations, what happens when a few hundred students try
to move in (and out) over the same few days each year? Even with furnished apartments, they
will bring a lot of stuff with them and will want and expect somewhat convenient loading. How
can that work?
Aesthetic Issues are last, but far from least. The images we saw last week show a building way
out of proportion to existing nearby structures. And I’m sorry to say that it doesn’t look
architecturally interesting or beautiful enough to warrant the attention it s sheer bulk will
command. Even the “nod” to its 3 and 4-storey neighbors made by some façade details doesn’t
go very far towards accomplishing visual harmony.
The building as pictured will deprive all the occupants of the north side of the street (as well as
the Gateway Commons) of a great deal of natural light, both direct and reflected, the wonderful
sense of space we have enjoyed, the views of the trees on South Hill and of the sky. This loss is
not trivial. I’d also like to point out that CSMA houses the second largest art gallery in Ithaca
where the natural light is much appreciated. (The school is also likely to have a higher heating
bill due to loss of passive solar heat during the winter.)
Just a thought…but a serious question: Why not put the requisite green space on the east side
of the building in a triangular portion of the current Trebloc parking lot ? Even a relatively small
triangular plaza would complement the two nicely planted traffic triangles at the intersection
and maintain more space and light at that arrival point into downtown than a border on the
Green Street side which will only be seen by passing traffic.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Karen Melamed Smith
CSMA program director
csmakms@aol.com
607-272-1474
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #2993 607 UTICA STREET
(DAVID MAZZERELLA)
Appeal of David Mazzerella, owner of 607 Utica Street, for a Special Temporary Permit in
accordance with Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-10, “Accessory apartments,” and for Area Variances
from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size, and Rear Yard, requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
In order to afford the cost-of-living and be able to remain in the City, the owner wants to build and
then inhabit a small accessory apartment, which will be located in the rear yard of his property at 607
Utica Street. He would then be able to rent the existing two-bedroom single-family home at this
location. The property at 607 Utica Street has several existing area deficiencies: Lot Width, Front
Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard (Section 325-8, Columns 7, 11, 12, and 13, respectively).
Section 325-10, “Accessory Apartment,” requirements state that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
may grant a Special Temporary Permit for an accessory apartment in spite of legal area deficiencies
for the main structure provided the BZA determines there will be no negative effect on the
surrounding properties. However, this section requires all new accessory apartment structures meet
applicable zoning requirements.
Because 607 Utica Street is a small lot, even with the removal of the existing garage, the construction
of an accessory apartment is not possible without the Board granting several variances. Aside from
seeking a Special Temporary Permit for an accessory apartment, the applicant also requests relief
from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, and 14/15, Parking, Lot Size, and Rear Yard, zoning
requirements.
The applicant proposes to remove the existing 216-SF garage on-site and provide an accessory
structure having a 255-SF footprint. The garage provides space for one car. The house and the
accessory structure would require two parking spaces; no off-street parking is proposed. The lot area
at 607 Utica Street is 3,927 SF. The requirement for the house and a new accessory apartment is
6,000 SF. Finally, the proposed accessory structure will have a 10-foot rear yard. The rear yard is
required to be 28.88 feet.
The applicant states he intends to meet the home occupation requirement, including Section 325-10
D. (8), which requires filing a deed restriction that states the permitted use for an accessory apartment
or second unit will cease if the property is not owner-occupied.
The property at 607 Utica Street is in an R-2b Residential District where accessory apartments are
permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that a Special Temporary Permit and Area Variances be
granted before a Building Permit is issued.
t City of IthacaBoard of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal Number2993Address607 Utica St.Use DistrictR-2bDate07/30/15ApplicantDavid MazzerrellaOwnerDavid MazzarellaApplication Type:Column Number234567891011121314/1516Column TitleUseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageFront YardSide yardOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building Height*existing1 familygarage13,927342<3526%581.371 feetDistrict Regulations for Existing1 and 2 familygarage13,0003533535%1010550 feetNote Non-Conforming ConditionsokokokokDEFokokokDEFDEFDEFok** Proposed 1 familyaccessory apartment03,927342<2027%512'-2"510 feetDistrict Regulation for Proposed1 and 2 familyaccessory apartment26,0003533535%1010528.8 feetNote Non-Conforming Conditions for Proposalokok****DEF ****DEFDEFokokokDEFokok****DEF* Represents current conditions with single family home and garage** Represents proposed conditions where an accessory apt ( second primary) replaces accessory garage struc ucture.*** The existing garage is partially over the souther lot line approximately .2 feet has a 2 foot rear yard setback. Garage requires 3 foot rear and side yard setback. The proposed accessory apartment will be located within the demolished garage's foot print but situated to meet both side yard setbacks. **** All deficiencies are existing except for parking, lot area and rear yard.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #2994 215-221 W. SPENCER STREET
(PPM HOMES)
Appeal of Noah Demarest, for PPM Homes, owner of 215-221 W. Spencer Street, for an Area
Variance from Section 325-20 F. (a) [1], Rear Yard Parking Setbacks, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The owner proposes to construct four 3-story residential buildings containing three units each on a
steeply sloped site between West Spencer and West Cayuga Streets. Because of the site’s
topography, the applicant proposes to locate the 12 required off-street parking spaces for this project
in the property’s rear yard, where there is access to Cayuga Street. However, Section 325-20 F. (a)
[1] does not allow parking in a property’s required rear yard setback. The rear yard setback
requirement is 31 feet and the applicant’s design requires parking in 77% of the required rear yard.
The property at 215-221 W. Spencer Street is located in an R-3b zone where the proposed residential
use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a Building
Permit can be issued.
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Worksheet
Appeal Number Address 215-221 West Spencer Street
Use Distr ict R-3b Date 07/15/15
Applicant Noah Demarest, AIA Owner Edward Cope
Application Type:BZA
Column
Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14/15 16
Column Title Use Accessory
Use
Off-Street
Parking
Off-Street
Loading
Lot Area
(Sq. Feet)
Lot Width
(Feet)
Number of
Stories
Height in
Feet
% of Lot
Coverage Front Yard Side Yard Other Side
Yard
Rear yard: % of depth
or number of feet,
whichever is less
Minimum
Building
Height
Existing
Condition and
Use
District
Regulations for
Existing
Multiple
Dwelling
Zone
None
Required See Chart 30/40 4 40 40%10 10 5 25% or 50', but not
less than 20 feet.None
Note Non-
Conforming
Conditions
Proposed
Condition
and/or Use
multi family none 12 0 19,923 165 3 36 28%10'10'10'32'
District
Regulation for
Proposed
Multiple
Dwelling
Zone
None
Required
See Chart 30/40 4 40 40%10 10 5 25% or 50', but not
less than 20 feet.None
Note Non-
Conforming
Conditions for
Proposal
parking in
front yard
Notes:
Page 1 of 13
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in
Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State: Zip Code:
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO:State: Zip Code:
Page 2 of 13
B. Government Approvals
B. Government Approvals Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes gran ts, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s)
Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
a. City Council, Town Board, Yes No
or Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village Yes No
Planning Board or Commission
c. City Council, Town or Yes No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies Yes No
e. County agencies Yes No
f. Regional agencies Yes No
g. State agencies Yes No
h. Federal agencies Yes No
i. Coastal Resources.
i.Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? Yes No
ii.Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? Yes No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? Yes No
C. Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the Yes No
only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.
If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site Yes No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action Yes No
would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway Yes No
Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, Yes No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes, identify the plan(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
C.3. Zoning
a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. Yes No
If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? Yes No
c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? Yes No
If Yes,
i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.
a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d.What parks serve the project site?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all
components)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________ acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?_____________ acres
c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?_____________ acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? Yes No
i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________
d.Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? Yes No
If Yes,
i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? Yes No
iii.Number of lots proposed? ________
iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? Yes No
i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months
ii.If Yes:
Total number of phases anticipated _____
Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year
Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year
Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
f.Does the project include new residential uses? Yes No
If Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
At completion
of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? Yes No
If Yes,
i.Total number of structures ___________
ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any Yes No
liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: Ground water Surface water streams Other specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres
v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations
a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? Yes No
(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?
Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________
Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? Yes No
If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres
vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet
viii.Will the excavation require blasting? Yes No
ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment Yes No
into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 13
ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or
alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes No
If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? Yes No
If Yes:
a of vegetation proposed to be removed ___________________________________________________________
acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project comp letion________________________________________
purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________
if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day
ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? Yes No
If Yes:
Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Do existing lines serve the project site? Yes No
iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? Yes No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If, Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________
Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day
ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? Yes No
If Yes:
Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________
Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________
Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No
Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Page 6 of 13
Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? Yes No
Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? Yes No
If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________
Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________
What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed
receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge, or describe subsurface disposal plans):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point Yes No
sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size)
ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? Yes No
iv.Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? Yes No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel Yes No
combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify:
i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, Yes No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet Yes No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
___________Tons/year () of Carbon Dioxide (CO 2)
___________Tons/year () of Nitrous Oxide (N 2)
___________Tons/year () of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
___________Tons/year () of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6)
___________Tons/year () of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflorocarbons (H)
___________Tons/year () of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Page 7 of 13
h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, Yes No
landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or
electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as Yes No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust):
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial Yes No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.
ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: _______________________
iii.Parking spaces: Existing _____________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________
iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? Yes No
v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi.Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site? Yes No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric Yes No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing Yes No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand Yes No
for energy?
If Yes:
i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to, an existing substation? Yes No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.
i. During Construction:ii.During Operations:
Monday - Friday: _________________________Monday - Friday: ____________________________
Saturday: ________________________________Saturday: ___________________________________
Sunday: _________________________________Sunday: ____________________________________
Holidays: ________________________________Holidays: ___________________________________
Page 8 of 13
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, Yes No
operation, or both?
If yes:
i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? Yes No
If yes:
i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? Yes No
Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? Yes No
If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest
occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Yes No Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (over 1,100 gallons)
or chemical products ?
If Yes:
i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)
iii.Generally describe proposed storage facilities ___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, Yes No
insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i.Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? Yes No
r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal Yes No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or
other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or
________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous Yes No
waste?
If Yes:
i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month
iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a. Existing land uses.
i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
Urban Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm)
Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other (specify): ____________________________________
ii.If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or
Covertype
Current
Acreage
Acreage After
Project Completion
Change
(Acres +/-)
Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious
surfaces
Forested
Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-
agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)
Agricultural
(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.)
Surface water features
(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.)
Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
Other
Describe: _______________________________
________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? Yes No
i.If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed Yes No
day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i.Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
Dam height: _________________________________ feet
Dam length: _________________________________ feet
Surface area: _________________________________ acres
Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii.Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________
iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, Yes No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed? Yes No
If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________
ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin Yes No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i.Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any Yes No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Yes No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________
Neither database
ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? Yes No
If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv.If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
v.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? Yes No
If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________
Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________
Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________
Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________
Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? Yes No
Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site
a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? Yes No
If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________%
___________________________ __________%
____________________________ __________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: Well Drained:_____% of ite
Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site
Poorly Drained _____% of ite
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 0-10%:_____% of site
10-15%: _____% of site
15% or greater: _____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? Yes No
If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.
i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, Yes No
ponds or lakes)?
ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? Yes No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i.
iii.Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, Yes No
state or local agency?
iv.For each identified wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information
Streams:Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________
Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________•Wetlands:Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________
Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v.Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired Yes No
waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? Yes No
j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? Yes No
k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? Yes No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? Yes No
If Yes:
i.Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________
iii.Extent of community/habitat:
Currently: ______________________ acres
Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres
Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Yes No
endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of Yes No
special concern?
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? Yes No
If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Yes No
Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? Yes No
i.If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii.Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National Yes No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i.Nature of the natural landmark: Biological Community Geological Feature
ii.Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? Yes No
If Yes:
i.CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 13
e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district Yes No
which is listed on, or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on, the
State or National Register of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i.Nature of historic/archaeological resource: Archaeological Site Historic Building or District
ii.Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Yes No
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory?
g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? Yes No
If Yes:
i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________
ii.Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________
h. Yes No the project site any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource?
If Yes:
i.Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________
ii.Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii.Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________
ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? Yes No
F. Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G. Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________
Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________
EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday, February 27, 2015 11:37 AM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist
project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental
assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are
answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF
question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although
the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to
DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order
to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a
substitute for agency determinations.
B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area]No
B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]No
C.2.b. [Special Planning District]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -
Potential Contamination History]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -
Listed]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -
Environmental Site Remediation Database]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation
Site]
Yes
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation
Site - DEC ID]
755010, 755015
E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features]No
E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features]No
E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features]Yes
E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features]Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and
waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies]No
E.2.i. [Floodway]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.2.l. [Aquifers]No
1Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
E.2.n. [Natural Communities]No
E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species]No
E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals]Yes
E.3.a. [Agricultural District]No
E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark]No
E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area]No
E.3.e. [National Register of Historic Places]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF
Workbook.
E.3.f. [Archeological Sites]Yes
E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor]No
2Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
1.DRAWINGSANDSPECIFICATIONSASINSTRUMENTSOFSERVICEREMAINTHEPROPERTYOFARCHITECTANDAREPROTECTEDUNDERCOMMONLAWCOPYRIGHTPROVISIONS.THEYARENOTTOBEREUSEDEXCEPTBYWRITTENAGREEMENTANDWITHTHEAGREEDCOMPENSATIONTOTHEARCHITECT.IFREUSEDWITHOUTPERMISSION,THEARCHITECTSHALLBEINDEMNIFIEDANDHELDHARMLESSFROMALLLIABILITY,LEGALEXPOSURE,CLAIMS,DAMAGES,LOSSES&EXPENSES.2.DRAWINGSSHALLNOTBEUSEDFORISSUANCEOFABUILDINGPERMITUNLESSSIGNED&SEALEDBYTHEARCHITECT.3.DRAWINGSSHALLNOTBEUSEDFORMULTIPLEORPROTOTYPEDEVELOPMENTWITHOUTWRITTENAUTHORIZATIONFROMTHEARCHITECT.4.THEARCHITECTSHALLNOTBERESPONSIBLEWHERECONSTRUCTIONDEVIATESFROMTHESEDRAWINGSORFROMWRITTENRECOMMENDATIONS.CHANGESTOTHEPLANBYTHEOWNERAND/ORCONTRACTORSHALLBETHERESPONSIBILITYOFTHEPERSONSMAKINGSUCHCHANGES.5.THEOWNERAND/ORCONTRACTORSHALLHOLDTHEARCHITECTHARMLESSFROM&AGAINSTALLCLAIMS,DAMAGES,LOSSES&EXPENSESINCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTO,ATTORNEY'SFEESARISINGOUTOFORRESULTINGFROMTHEPERFORMANCEOFTHEWORKBYTHECONTRACTOR.6.THEARCHITECTSHALLNOTHAVECONTROLORCHANGEOF&SHALLNOTBERESPONSIBLEFORCONSTRUCTIONMEANS,METHODS,TECHNIQUES,SEQUENCES,ORPROCEDURES,FORSAFETYPRECAUTIONS&PROGRAMSINCONNECTIONWITHTHEWORK,FORTHEACTSOROMISSIONSOFTHECONTRACTOR,SUBCONTRACTOR,FORANYOTHERPERSONSPERFORMINGANYOFTHEWORK,ORFORTHEFAILUREOFANYOFTHEMTOCARRYOUTTHEWORKINACCORDANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS.7.THECONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLEFOROBTAINING&PAYINGFORALLTHEREQUIREDPERMITS,INSPECTIONS,ETC.WORKMANSHIP1.ALLWORK,MATERIALSANDEQUIPMENTSHALLMEETTHELATESTREQUIREMENTSOFALLAPPLICABLESTATE&LOCALBUILDINGCODES,REGULATIONS,&THEREQUIREMENTSOFTHEAUTHORITIESHAVINGJURISDICTION2.INSTALLALLPRODUCTSINACCORDANCEWITHTHEMANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS&THESTANDARDOFRECOGNIZEDAGENCIES&ASSOCIATIONS.PROVIDEALLANCHORS,FASTENERS,&ACCESSORIESREQUIREDFORACOMPLETEINSTALLATION.ALLOWFORTHERMALEXPANSION/CONTRACTION&BUILDINGMOVEMENT.SEPARATEINCOMPATIBLEMATERIALSWITHSUITABLEMATERIALSORSPACING.PREVENTCATHODICCORROSION.PROTECTALUMINUMSURFACESFROMCONTACTWITHMASONRYOROTHERMETALS.PROVIDECONTROLJOINTSATMATERIALS&ISOLATIONJOINTSBETWEENMATERIALS/STRUCTUREASINDICATED&ASREQUIREDBYMANUFACTURERORRECOGNIZEDINDUSTRYSTANDARDS.3.INSTALLPRODUCTSUNDERAPPROPRIATEENVIRONMENTALCONDITIONS(AIRTEMPERATURE,SURFACETEMPERATURE,RELATIVEHUMIDITY,ETC.)TOINSUREQUALITYANDDURABILITY,MAINTAINPROPERPROTECTIONDURINGDRYING/CURING.4.THECONTRACTORSHALL,WITHOUTDELAY&PRIORTOFABRICATIONORINSTALLATION,BRINGTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEARCHITECTANYDISCREPANCIESBETWEENTHEMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONSORRECOMMENDATIONS,APPLICABLECODEPROVISIONS,ANDTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS.5.UNAUTHORIZEDCHANGESTOPLANSBYTHEOWNERAND/ORCONTRACTORSHALLBETHERESPONSIBILITYOFTHEPERSONSMAKINGSUCHCHANGES.PRODUCTOPTIONSANDSUBSTITUTIONS1.ITISTHECONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITYTOSELECTPRODUCTSWHICHCOMPLYWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS&WHICHARECOMPATIBLEWITHONEANOTHER,WITHEXISTINGWORK,&THEPRODUCTSSELECTEDBYOTHERCONTRACTORS.2.PROVIDEMANUFACTURER'SINFORMATION,SAMPLES,ETC.WHENREQUESTED.3.SUBMISSIONOFASUBSTITUTIONREQUESTBYTHECONTRACTOR,WHEREPERMITTEDONTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS,SHALLCONSTITUTEAREPRESENTATIONBYTHECONTRACTORTHATHE/SHEHASINVESTIGATEDTHEPROPOSEDPRODUCTORCONDITIONS&DETERMINEDTHATITISEQUALTOORBETTERTHANTHESPECIFIEDPRODUCTORCONDITION,INCLUDINGWARRANTYCOVERAGE,&THATHE/SHEWILLCOORDINATETHEINSTALLATION&MAKEOTHERCHANGES,INCLUDINGMODIFICATIONANDCOORDINATIONOFOTHERWORKAFFECTEDBYTHECHANGE,WHICHMAYBEREQUIREDFORTHEIRWORKTOBECOMPLETEINALLASPECTS.4.THESEDRAWINGSDONOTINCLUDETHEFINALSELECTIONOFINTERIORFINISHMATERIALS,CABINETRY,HARDWARE,FURNISHINGS,&OTHERSIMILAREQUIPMENT.CONTRACTORSHALLPROVIDETHEOWNERWITHALLAVAILABLEOPTIONSTOCHOOSEFROMWHEREAPPLICABLE.5.THECONTRACTORISRESPONSIBLEFORTHEDESIGNOFHEATING,VENTILATION&AIRCONDITIONING,PLUMBING,GAS&ELECTRICALSYSTEMS,INCLUDINGPREPARATIONOFREQUIREDDRAWINGS&COORDINATIONWITHARCHITECTURALDRAWINGS.THEDRAWINGSSHOWTHEGENERALARRANGEMENT&EXTENTOFTHEWORK.GENERALPROJECTNOTESDIMENSIONS1.DONOTSCALEDRAWINGS.WRITTENDIMENSIONSHALLGOVERN.2.CONTRACTORSHALLCHECK,VERIFY&MAINTAINALLDIMENSIONS,GRADES,LEVELS&OTHERCONDITIONSBEFOREPROCEEDINGWITHFABRICATION&CONSTRUCTION.3.COORDINATEEXACTLOCATIONSOFEQUIPMENT,FIXTURES&OUTLETSWITHFINISHEDELEMENTS.4.ALLDIMENSIONSAREFROMFACEOFSTUDORMASONRYSHOPDRAWINGS1.WHERENECESSARYORWHERESPECIFICALLYINDICATED,THECONTRACTORSHALLPROVIDESHOPDRAWINGS&DETAILEDCOMPONENTDESIGNASREQUIREDFORTHEPROPERFABRICATION,INSTALLATION,ANDCOORDINATIONWITHOTHERTRADES.SHOPDRAWINGS:CONTRACTORSHALLFURNISHSHOPDRAWINGSFORALLSHOPFABRICATEDITEMS&WHERECUSTOMARILYREQUIRED&SUBMITELECTRONICSHOPDRAWINGSFORREVIEWINPDFORDWFFORMAT.THECONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLEFORCHECKINGTHESHOPDRAWINGSFORACCURACY,COORDINATIONWITHOTHERTRADES,&COMPLIANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTSBEFOREBEINGSUBMITTEDFORAPPROVAL.ARCHITECT'SORENGINEER'SAPPROVALOFSHOPDRAWINGSSHALLCONSTITUTEREVIEW&APPROVALOFTHEGENERALARRANGEMENTOFCOMPONENTSTOCOMPLYWITHTHEGENERALINTENTOFTHECONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS&INNOWAYRELIEVESTHECONTRACTORFROMHIS/HERRESPONSIBILITYFORCOMPLIANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS,EVENIFSUCHITEMSARENOTSHOWNONTHESHOPDRAWINGS.THECONTRACTORSHALLCHECKALLDIMENSIONS&CONDITIONSTOINSUREAPROPERFITUNDERFIELDCONDITIONS&SHALLMAKEADJUSTMENTSASREQUIREDTOMAKEPARTSALIGN.ALLREVISIONSTOSHOPDRAWINGSAFTERTHEFIRSTSUBMISSIONMUSTBEPROPERLYIDENTIFIEDONSUBSEQUENTSUBMISSIONS.2.PRIORTOPERFORMINGANYWORK,THECONTRACTORSHALLEXAMINETHEAPPLICABLECONDITIONS&SUBSTRATES&CORRECTANYUNSATISFACTORYCONDITIONSBEFOREPROCEEDINGWITHTHEWORK.VERIFYTHATSUBSTRATE&BASEPLIES/COATSARECOMPATIBLEWITHNEWWORK.NOTIFYTHEARCHITECTPROMPTLYOFANYMODIFICATIONSREQUIRED.3.WORKPERFORMEDOVERANYSURFACECONSTITUTESACCEPTANCEOFTHATSURFACEFORTHESPECIFIEDQUALITYOFTHEWORKBEINGPERFORMEDTHEREON.4.ANYCHANGESTOTHEPLANSBYTHEOWNERORCONTRACTORSHALLBETHERESPONSIBILITYOFTHEPERSONSMAKINGSUCHCHANGES.5.INCLUDEALLCUTTING&PATCHINGFORPENETRATIONSTHROUGHFLOORS,WALLSCEILINGSANDROOFS.DONOTCUTORNOTCHANYSTRUCTURALMEMBERTOREDUCEITSLOADCARRYINGCAPACITY.6.SHOULDUNFORESEENCONDITIONSBEENCOUNTEREDTHATAFFECTDESIGNORFUNCTIONOFTHEPROJECT,CONTRACTORSHALLINVESTIGATEFULLY&SUBMITANACCURATE,DETAILEDREPORTTOTHEARCHITECTWITHOUTDELAY.WHILEAWAITINGARESPONSE,CONTRACTORSHALLRESCHEDULEOPERATIONSASREQUIREDTOAVOIDDELAYOFOVERALLPROJECT.PROVIDETEMPORARYFACILITIES,SERVICEUTILITIES,&PROTECTIONASREQUIREDTOSAFELYEXECUTINGALLWORK.PROTECTADJACENTCONSTRUCTION,ANDINHABITANTS.COMPLYWITHALLAPPLICABLEREQUIREMENTSOFGOVERNINGAUTHORITIESINCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTOPUBLICUTILITIES.PROVIDE24HOURNOTIFICATIONOFANYDISCONTINUITYOFUTILITYSERVICESWITHOWNER.7.CONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLETOREMOVEANDLEGALLYDISPOSEOFALLMATERIALSFROMTHEJOBSITE.8.THECONTRACTORSHALLPREPARE&MAINTAINACOMPLETESETOFRECORDCONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGSINDICATINGALLACTUALWORK,MODIFICATION&REVISIONSTOTHEWORKDELINEATEDONTHECONSTRUCTIONSDRAWINGSASWELLASANYCONCEALEDCONSTRUCTIONWORK.INCLUDEANYOTHERINFORMATIONWHICHWOULDBEHELPFULTOTHEOWNER.9.ALLCONTRACTORS&ALLSUBCONTRACTORSSHALLTAKEOUT&MAINTAINWORKMAN'SCOMPENSATIONINSURANCE,ANDPUBLICLIABILITY&PROPERTYDAMAGEINSURANCEACCEPTABLETOTHEOWNER&THEAUTHORITIESHAVINGJURISDICTION.PROJECTCLOSEOUT1.CONTRACTORSHALLPROCUREFINALCERTIFICATEOFOCCUPANCYUPONCOMPLETIONOFTHEPROJECTANDFORWARDSAMETOTHEOWNER.2.CONTRACTORSHALLCLEANTHEPREMISES,TESTAPPLICABLESYSTEMS,ANDLEAVEREADYFOROCCUPANCY.WARRANTIES1.UNLESSOTHERWISEINDICATED,CONTRACTORISTOPROVIDEWRITTENWARRANTYFORAPERIODOFONEYEARFROMTHEDATEOFSUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION.THEWARRANTYSHALLSTATEALLWORKHASBEENCOMPLETEDINCONFORMANCEWITHTHECONTRACTDOCUMENTS,APPLICABLECODES,ANDENFORCINGAUTHORITIESANDTHATALLWORKISFREEFROMDEFECTSOFMATERIALANDWORKMANSHIP.THISISINADDITIONTOANDNOTALIMITATIONTOANYPRODUCTMANUFACTURER'SPRODUCTWARRANTIES.2.ALLELECTRICALWORKSHALLBECARRIEDOUTBYALICENSEDELECTRICIANONLY.ALLWORKSHALLCONFORMTOTHEPROVISIONSOFTHENATIONALELECTRICCODEOFNFPA,LATESTEDITION.3.ALLPLUMBINGWORKSHALLBECARRIEDOUTBYALICENSEDPLUMBER.ALLEQUIPMENT&FIXTURESTOCONFORMTOTHENATIONALSTANDARDPLUMBINGCODE,LATESTEDITION.BUILDINGCODEDATABuildingCodeUse/OccupancyConstructionType2010NYSBUILDINGCODE306.2BuildingHeightNumberofStoriesFloorAreaReference602.5503.1503.1503.1TYPEVB(Sprinklered)60'0"314,000SFDataR2(Residential)ReferenceRequired/AllowedProposed34'8"313,637SFProposedPROJECTDATAProjectNameProjectAddressClientNameClientAddressTaxParcelProjectDescriptionNewfourbuildingmultifamilycomplexonapreviouslydevelopedbutclearedsitesituatedonahillsidealongWestSpencerStreet.Designedasstudentrentalhousing,eachbuildingis3storiestall,16total13bedroomapartmentunits.Thecomplexwillhavecentralizedparkingfor12cars.SiteworkwillalsoincludestairsandpathconnectingWestSpencerSttoSouthCayuga215221WestSpencerStreet215221WestSpencerStreetPPMHomes514SAuroraSt#1A,IthacaNY1485093.75.1ZONINGDATAZoningOrdinanceZoningDistrictUseLotWidthLotDepthCityofIthacaR3bRequired/AllowedLotAreaBuildingAreaLotCoverageBuildingHeightParkingFrontSetbackSideSetback1SideSetback2RearSetbackProposedReferenceMultifamilyResidentialMultifamilyResidential40'8,000sf40%60'1210'10'5'25%NLT20'12412620,473sf13,63712.2%<40'1214'10"10'9"10'9"31'2"DataBuildingCode2010NYSBuildingCodeNUMBERINGA106.1ROOM NAMEA1.101BUILDINGUNITROOMBUILDINGUNITROOMDOORProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comDESIGNTEAMSTREAMCollaborativeArchitecture&LandscapeArchitectureDPCNoahDemarestRA,RLA,LEEDAPph:607.216.8802noah@streamcolab.com# PoundORNumber&And@AtACT AcousticCeilingTileAD AreaDrainAFF AboveFinishedFloorALUM AluminumANOD AnodizedBSMT BasementBYND BeyondBOT BottomCIP CastInPlaceCHNL ChannelCJ ControlJointCLG CeilingCLR ClearCMU ConcreteMasonryUnitCOL ColumnCOMPR CompressibleCONC ConcreteCONT ContinuousCPT CarpetCT CeramicTileCTYD CourtyardDBL DoubleDEMO DemolishorDemolitionDIA DiameterDIM DimensionDIMS DimensionsDN DownDR DoorDWG DrawingEA EachEJ ExpansionJointEL ElevationELEC ElectricalELEV ElevatororElevationEPDM EthylenePropyleneDieneMClassEQ EqualEXIST ExistingEXPJT ExpansionJointEXT ExteriorFD FloorDrainorFireDepartmentFEC FireExtinguisherCabinetFIXT FixtureFLR FloorFM FilledMetalFO FaceOfFND FoundationGA GaugeGALV GalvanizedGWB GypsumWallBoardHC HollowCoreHI HighHM HollowMetalABBREVIATIONSHP HighPointHR HourHVAC Heating,Ventilating,AndAirConditioningIRGWB ImpactResistantGypsumWallBoardILO InLieuOfINSUL InsulatedorInsulationINT InteriorLO LowMAX MaximumMO MasonryOpeningMECH MechanicalMEMBR MembraneMIN MinimumMRGWBMoistureResistantGypsumWallBoardMTL MetalNIC NotInContractNO NumberNOM NominalOC OnCenterOH OppositeHandOZ OuncePCC PreCastConcretePLUMB PlumbingPLYD PlywoodPT PressureTreatedPNT PaintorPaintedPVC PolyvinylChlorideRBR RubberRCP ReflectedCeilingPlanRD RoofDrainREQD RequiredRM RoomSIM SimilarSPEC SpecifiedORSpecificationSPK SprinklerorSpeakerSSTL StainlessSteelSTC SoundTransmissionCoefficientSTL SteelSTRUCTStructureorStructuralT&G TongueAndGrooveTELE TelephoneTLT ToiletTO TopOfTOC TopOfConcreteTOS TopOfSteelTPD ToiletPaperDispenserT/D Telephone/DataTYP TypicalUNO UnlessNotedOtherwiseU/S UndersideVIF VerifyInFieldVP VisionPanelW/ WithWD WoodA1234BCDAsindicated7/8/20154:32:35PMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtG000COVERPAGE2015001215221SPENCERSTREET7/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW215221SPENCERSTREETCITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMES3"=1'0"1PERSPECTIVEDRAWING LISTSheetNumberSheetNameG000 COVERPAGEL101 SITEDEMOANDLAYOUTPLANSL102 GRADINGANDPLANTINGPLANSA100 AREAPLANSBUILDINGA&BA101A BUILDINGAFLOORPLANSA102A BUI.DINGAFLOORPLANSA201A BUILDINGAELEVATIONSA202A BUILDINGAELEVATIONSA101B BUILDINGBFLOORPLANSA102B BUILDINGBFLOORPLANSA201B BUILDINGBELEVATIONSA202B BUILDINGBELEVATIONSA100C AREAPLANSBUILDINGC&DA101C BUILDINGC&DFLOORPLANSA102C BUILDINGC&DFLOORPLANSA201C BUILDINGC&DELEVATIONSA202C BUILDINGC&DELEVATIONSREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
SOUTH CAYUGASTREETWEST SPENCERSTREETAREA=0.411 ACRESTAX MAP NO.93-7-5.1INST. NO.444685-001CITY OF ITHACA21.5'±GUARDRAIL7.4'±7.3'±1.2'±4.6'±0.6'±13.9'±4' WIDE EASEMENTFOR INGRESS &EGRESS, 458/42214" MAPLE12" CHERRY10" MAPLE18" WALNUTDRIVEGRAVELRETAINING WALLCONCRETE422418416420442440438436434432430428426424460460458456454452448450446444462464466468470472474468464466462CLEANOUTSEWERRIM=416.5'RIM=415.7'RIM=414.8'CATCH BASIN12" MAPLE10" ASH10" ASH10" BASSWOOD10" ASH12" LOCUST12" TREE12" ASH-WATER VALVE-TRAFFIC SIGN-GAS VALVETBM:ARROWHEAD ON FIRE HYDRANTAT INTERSECTIONOF WEST SPENCER ST. &SOUTH CAYUGA STREET.ELEV=422.75'OF SOUTH CAYUGA ST.179'± TO WEST LINE(VACANT LAND)-COMPUTED POINT-IRON STAKE FOUND, LABELED-UTILITY POLELEGENDMAP REFERENCENORTH PERWELLMONITORINGSTONE STEPSLOH (R.O.)457883-001TAX MAP NO.93-7-7TAX MAP NO.93-7-6IACOVELLI (R.O.)883/270TAX MAP NO.93-7-4623/357AMICI (R.O.)TAX MAP NO.93-7-3435860-001CITY OF ITHACA (R.O.)4) 8-10" SNOW AND ICE ACCUMULATION AT TIME OF SURVEY.FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.3) ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATION ONLY, VERIFY INMONUMENTS.2) HORIZONTAL DATUM IS TRUE NORTH PER GPS OBSERVATIONS AND NYSE&GINTERVAL IS 2 FOOT.INTERSECTION OF ELMIRA ROAD AND SOUTH PLAIN STREET. CONTOUR1) DATUM OF ELEVATIONS IS NAD 83 PER NYSE&G MONUMENT T1008 AT THENOTES:F
OUNDPI
PEPIPEFOUND PIPEFOUNDPIPEFOUNDCONCRETE WALK"DRIVEWAY"WOOD DECKELEVATEDFACE CURBSENT
CENT
ERL
I
NERB CUT 0.3'NO.514HOUSENO.504HOUSENO.506HOUSECURB FACECURB FACECONC. WALKCONCRETE WALLCONCRET
E WALKCURB FACECURB CUT
F
OUNDPI
PE
PI
N FOUNDN 60°02'29'' W124.41'N 29°08'16'' E126.19'
87.74'N 59°45'06'' W
22.00'S 27°16'32'' W98.30'119.16'S 00°36'59'
' ES 59°55'06'' ECLEANOUTSEWER RIM=416.5'RIM=415.7'RIM=478.6'RIM=414.8'CATCH BASIN'12" MAPLE10" ASH10" ASH10" BASSWOOD10" ASH12" LOCUST12" TREE12" ASHN 60°02'29'' W124.41'N 29°08'16'' E87.74'N 59°45'06'' W22.00'S 27°16'32'' W98.30'119.16'S 00°36'59'' ES 59°55'06'' EXXXXXXXXXX
TREESTOBEREMOVEDREMOVECONCRETERETAININGWALLREMOVEGRAVELDRIVEREMOVEPROPERTYLINE7'4"1'0"49'0" 37'0" 1'0" 7'5"BLDGCBLDGDBLDGABLDGB4'0"5'0"18'0" 22'0" 18'0"9'0"12'0"10'0".21'5"21'5"12'0"ASPHALTPARKINGCONCRETEWALKCONCRETESTAIRSTEPPEDIN4'SECTIONS28'0"FENCESTEPPEDIN4'SECTIONS56'0"FENCENEWCONCRETEWALKCONCRETERETAININGWALLCONCRETERETAININGWALLWOODDECK10'10"R 10' - 0"R 20' - 0"CAYUGASTREETSPENCERSTREET11'3"26'8"7'0"4'0"BIKERUNG,TYP7'0"4'0"SCREENFENCESETONTOPOFRETWALL4'0"SCREENFENCESETONTOPOFRETWALLTRANSFORMERBIKERUNGPAINTSTRIPESFORMERPROPERTYLINEREVISEDPROPLINEPER2.15.2012SURVEY4'0"BOLLARD19'8"10'9"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1"=20'0"8/6/201511:22:34AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtL101SITEDEMOANDLAYOUTPLANS2015001215221SPENCERSTREET8/06/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1"=20'0"D3SITEDEMOPLAN1"=20'0"D1LAYOUTPLANREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
418416442438436434460460458456454452462464466468470472474468464466462CLEANOUTSEWERRIM=416.5'RIM=415.7'RIM=414.8'CATCH BASIN12" MAPLE10" ASH10" ASH10" BASSWOOD10" ASH12" LOCUST12" TREE12"N 60°02'29'' W87.74'N 59°45'06'' W
22.00'S 27°16'32'' W98.30'119.16'S 00°36'59'
' ES 59°55'06'' ECLEANOUTSEWER RIM=416.5'RIM=415.7'RIM=414.8'CATCH BASIN12" MAPLE10" ASH10" ASH10" BASSWOOD10" ASH12" LOCUST12" TREE12" ASN 60°02'29'' W87.74'N 59°45'06'' W
22.00'S 27°16'32'' W98.30'119.16'S 00°36'59'
' ES 59°55'06'' EAGA
PCEAGACVICVICVIAGAAGACVICVICVIPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPCEPACXXXXXXXXXXBLDGCBLDGDBLDGABLDGBTW458.00458.00458.75BS458.00BW458.00TW463.00457.00457.00RIM456.50BW448.00440.50441.00TW435.00TW435.00BW433.50TW435.00440.50432.00421.50416.00+/BS416.00+/420.00423.00424.00TS433.50TS440.50TS451.00TS457.00441.00TS465.00BS424.003RDFFE=460.502NDFFE=451.501STFFE=441.503RDFFE=460.502NDFFE=451.501STFFE=441.503RDFFE=443.002NDFFE=434.001STFFE=424.003RDFFE=443.002NDFFE=434.001STFFE=424.00444.00+/444.00+/TS423.75TW428.00TW458.00TW458.00TW458.00MEADOWMIXMEADOWMIXMEADOWMIXMEADOWMIXGRAVELMULCHGRAVELMULCHGROUNDCOVERGROUNDCOVERBLDGCBLDGDBLDGABLDGBRHUSAROMATICAGROUNDCOVERSEDUMGROUNDCOVERJUNIPERGROUNDCOVERCYPRESSGROUNDCOVERVIRGINIACREEPERTOGROWUPWALL&FENCEVIRGINIACREEPERTOGROWUPWALL&FENCE2"3"SINGLEGROUNDHARDWOODBARKMULCHPLANTINGMIXTOPSOIL(1PART),COMPOST(1PART),SAND(1PART)4"TOPSOILFORLAWNSSPADEDEDGETYPICAL2'0"MINCOMPACTEDPLANTINGMIXBENEATHROOTBALLTOPREVENTSETTLING2"SINGLEGROUNDHARDWOODBARKMULCHPLANTINGMIXTOPSOIL(1PART),COMPOST(1PART),SAND(1PART)5'0"SPADEDEDGETYPICALCOMPACTEDPLANTINGMIXBENEATHROOTBALLTOPREVENTSETTLING3XROOTBALLROOTBALL+6"1.CONSULTLANDSCAPEARCHITECTONSHAPEOFBEDEDGE&PLACEMENTOFALLPLANTSPRIORTOINSTALLATION.2.ONLYNURSERYGROWNPLANTMATERIALSSHALLBEACCEPTABLE.ALLTREES,SHRUBSANDGROUNDCOVERSSHALLCOMPLYWITHAPPLICABLEREQUIREMENTSOFANSIZ60.1,AMERICANSTANDARDFORNURSERYSTOCK.3.ALLPLANTINGBEDSTOBEEXCAVATEDTOAMINIMUMDEPTHOFTWOFEETANDREPLACEDWITHAMENDEDTOPSOILCONSISTINGOF1PARTSCREENEDTOPSOIL,1PARTCOMPOSTAND1PARTSAND.4.TREEPITSINLAWNTOBEEXCAVATEDTODEPTHOFROOTBALLPLUSSIXINCHESANDSHALLBETHREETIMESTHEWIDTHOFTHEROOTBALL.5.DECIDUOUSTREESSHALLHAVEACALIPEROFATLEAST21/2INCHESATBREASTHEIGHT(DBH)ATTHETIMEOFPLANTING.6.ALLTREESINLAWNAREASTORECEIVEFIVEFOOTDIAMETERMULCHRINGS.7.INSTALL3INCHESOFNATURALSHREDDEDBARKMULCHINALLPLANTINGBEDS.8.NOPLANTSORTREESSHALLBELOCATEDBENEATHBUILDINGOVERHANGS.9.SUN/SHADELAWNMIXDEEPTILLANYCOMPACTIONDUETOCONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALL4"OFAMENDEDTOPSOIL.10.WARRANTYALLPLANTMATERIALSFORAPERIODOF1YEARBEYONDTHEDATEOFSUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION.GENERALSHEETNOTESPLANTINGProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCDAsindicated8/6/201511:22:36AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtL102GRADINGANDPLANTINGPLANS2015001215221SPENCERSTREET8/06/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1"=20'0"D3GRADINGPLAN1"=20'0"D1PLANTINGPLAN1/2"=1'0"1TYPICALPERENNIALPLANTING1/2"=1'0"2TYPICALTREEPLANTINGPLANTINGSCHEDULEKEY QTY.BOTANICALNAMECOMMONNAMEINSTALLEDSIZE MATURESIZE COMMENTSORNAMENTALGRASSPAV 40 PanicumVirgatum'Shenandoah'ShenandoahSwitchgrass#3CONTAINER 4'tall,2'wideSHRUBDECIDUOUSHPL 23 Hydrangeapaniculata'Limelight'LIMELIGHTHARDYHYDRANGEA #5CONTAINER 6'WIDE,8'TALL SALTTOLERANTSHRUBEVERGREENJHB 55 Juniperushorizontalis'BarHarbor'BARHARBORCREEPINGJUNIPER #3CONTAINER 4'WideSALTTOLERANTMDE 66 MicrobiotadecussataRUSSIANARBORVITAE#3CONTAINER 5'WIDESHRUBBYGROUNDCOVER,SEMIDEERRESISTANTTREEDECIDUOUSPAC 1 Platanus×acerifoliaLONDONPLANETREE21/2"CALIPER 70'TALLTREEEVERGREENPCE 12 PinuscembraSWISSSTONEPINE6'TALL15'TALLTREEORNAMENTALAGA 4 Amelanchier×grandiflora'AutumnBrilliance' APPLESERVICEBERRY21/2"CALIPER 20'TALLCVI 6 ChionanthusVirginicusFRINGETREE21/2"CALIPER 14'TALLREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATENOTE:ADD'LGROUNDCOVERSANDPERENNIALSBYOWNER
WHWHWHWH1077 SFUNIT B11311 SFUNIT A1TERRACETERRACE59'41/2"26'8"48'41/2"21'4"BENCHBENCH637 SFUNIT A2866 SFUNIT A3PORCHWOOD DECKWOOD DECKPORCH637 SFUNIT B2637 SFUNIT B359'41/2"26'8"48'41/2"26'4"BENCHBENCHBENCH637 SFUNIT A3637 SFUNIT A2637 SFUNIT B2637 SFUNIT B348'41/2"26'8"48'41/2"26'4"4" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/8"=1'0"7/8/201511:52:44AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA100AREAPLANSBUILDINGA&B2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/8"=1'0"C11STFLOORGROSSAREAPLAN1/8"=1'0"C22NDFLOORGROSSAREAPLAN1/8"=1'0"C33RDFLOORGROSSAREAPLANGROSSAREASCHEDULEUNIT AREAUNITA1 1311SFUNITA2 637SFUNITA2 637SFUNITA3 866SFUNITA3 637SF4087SFUNITB1 1077SFUNITB2 637SFUNITB2 637SFUNITB3 637SFUNITB3 637SF3625SFREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1.COORDINATEELEVATIONSWITHFLOORPLANSANDWINDOWSANDDOORSCHEDULES.2.SEESCHEDULESFORHEADHEIGHTSCOORDINATEADJACENTWINDOWANDDOORROUGHOPENINGSTOENSURECONTINUOUSHEADCASINGS.GENERALSHEETNOTESELEVATIONS1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"C1B46" 12"6" 12"4" 12"C45B461ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F1F2F5F6U5U4U3U2U6U17C7C23C24C25C26C27F13E16" 12"6" 12"4" 12"12x12FIBERGLASSDIAMONSHINGLESProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCDAsindicated7/8/201511:53:08AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA201ABUILDINGAELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1WESTELEVATIONBUILDINGA1/4"=1'0"D1SOUTHELEVATIONBUILDINGAREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F 2F4F10C21C22C28F 66" 12"4" 12"4" 12"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"U19U20C9C10B1B2F 54" 12"B36" 12"4" 12"4" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201511:53:43AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA202ABUILDINGAELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"D1EASTELEVATIONBUILDINGA1/4"=1'0"B1NORTHELEVATIONBUILDINGAREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F3F7F9F11U30U8U15U11U31U14C36C37C38C39C40C416" 12"3" 12"1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"F8F 1F12C13C12C18F 76" 12"3" 12"3" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201511:53:27AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA201BBUILDINGBELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1SOUTHELEVATIONBUILDINGB1/4"=1'0"D2WESTELEVATIONBUILDINGBREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"U32U33C42C43A1A2F 44" 12"4" 12"6" 12"1ST SUB FLOOR0"2ND SUB FLOOR10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR19' - 0"ROOF PLATE28' - 0"MM1U16U29C34C354" 12"6" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201511:53:59AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStTownhomes_chris_stream.rvtA202BBUILDINGBELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERST07/08/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"D1NORTHELEVATIONBUILDINGB1/4"=1'0"B1EASTELEVATIONBUILDINGBREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
WHWHWHWHWH WH989 SFUNIT C1989 SFUNIT D1TERRACETERRACEW/D33"REFW/D33"REFBENCHBENCH986 SFUNIT C2986 SFUNIT D2TERRACETERRACETERRACE34'7"W/DW/D31'7"BENCHBENCH986 SFUNIT C3986 SFUNIT D3TERRACETERRACETERRACEProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/8"=1'0"7/8/201510:35:19AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerSt_chris_stream.rvtA100CAREAPLANSBUILDINGC&D2015001215221WESTSPENCERSTREET07/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/8"=1'0"C11STFLOORGROSSAREAPLAN1/8"=1'0"C22NDFLOORGROSSAREAPLANAREASCHEDULEName Area CommentsUNITC1 989SFUNITC2 986SFUNITC3 986SF2962SFUNITD1 989SFUNITD2 986SFUNITD3 986SF2962SF5923SF1/8"=1'0"C33RDFLOORGROSSAREAPLANREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
1.COORDINATEELEVATIONSWITHFLOORPLANSANDWINDOWSANDDOORSCHEDULES.2.SEESCHEDULESFORHEADHEIGHTSCOORDINATEADJACENTWINDOWANDDOORROUGHOPENINGSTOENSURECONTINUOUSHEADCASINGS.GENERALSHEETNOTESELEVATIONS2ND SUB FLOOR0"1ST SUB FLOOR-10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"G2H1E 2E 1E 3C1C3F2B1B5D3D2D14" 12"2ND SUB FLOOR0"1ST SUB FLOOR-10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"G1H2B1E1B2WINDOWWELLOUTLINE4" 12"EXISTINGGRADEProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCDAsindicated7/8/201510:35:36AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerSt_chris_stream.rvtA201CBUILDINGC&DELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERSTREET07/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1SOUTHELEVATION1/4"=1'0"D1WESTELEVATIONNOTE:BUILDINGDSIMILARFLIPPEDNOTE:BUILDINGDSIMILARFLIPPEDREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"B3B46" 12"2ND SUB FLOOR0"1ST SUB FLOOR-10' - 0"3RD SUB FLOOR9' - 0"ROOF PLATE17' - 0"C2C4B8B7E 2E 1D6D5D46" 12"Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/4"=1'0"7/8/201510:35:50AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerSt_chris_stream.rvtA202CBUILDINGC&DELEVATIONS2015001215221WESTSPENCERSTREET07/8/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEW1/4"=1'0"B1NORTHELEVATION1/4"=1'0"D1EASTELEVATIONREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECTLIMITWESTSPENCERSTREET+/50'0"ROWEL.468.00EL.415.50SCAYUGASTREET+/50'0"ROW521SCAYUGASTREET216WSPENCERSTREETProject#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD1/16"=1'0"8/6/201511:22:38AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtL501SITESECTION2015001215221SPENCERSTREET8/06/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEWREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATEPARKINGBUILDINGC&DBUILDINGA&B
Project#DateSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA1234BCD8/6/201511:22:33AMC:\Users\Chris\Documents\215221WSpencerStSITE_chris_stream.rvtL001PERSPECTIVES2015001215221SPENCERSTREET8/06/2015CITYOFITHACA,NYPPMHOMESSITEPLANREVIEWREVISIONSDESCRIPTION DATE
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #2996 171 E. STATE STREET CENTER ITHACA
(TTH PROPERTIES)
Appeal of Center Ithaca TTH Properties of Ithaca, LLC, owner of 171 E. State Street, for variances
from Section 272-5 D., prohibiting flashing signs, 275-5 I., prohibiting billboards, and 272-6 B. (2),
regarding the number of allowed wall signs in a Commercial Zone, requirements of the Sign
Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to renovate the existing sign on the marquee on the front façade of 171 E.
State Street. The existing marquee advertises “Center Ithaca.” This signage will be relocated onto a
black-powdered coated steel grid above the existing marquee, alongside the pre-existing red
exclamation point. The marquee will be fitted with a full-color LED screen on the north face of the
marquee and with two linked bicolor screens on the marquee’s east and west faces. The proposed
LED sign will feature a series of gradually transitioning imagery and marketing content pertaining to
Center Ithaca tenants and, in particular, public notices from the Downtown Ithaca Alliance,
advertising community events.
Sign Ordinance, Section 272-5 D., expressly prohibits any sign displaying flashing or intermittent
lights, or lights changing degrees of intensity. Section 272-5 I. also expressly prohibits billboards,
which are considered signs advertising businesses conducted, services provided, or products sold on
properties other than the property where the sign is located. Finally, Section 272-6 B. (2) restricts the
number of signs in commercial districts to two wall signs for each business, no larger than 50 SF
each. Aside from the relocated 29.3-SF “Center Ithaca” sign, which is considered a new sign, and the
marquee signage, there are three additional existing signs on the front façade and another four
existing signs placed along the back face of the building (9 signs total signage: 191.25 SF).
The property at 171 E. State Street is in a CBD-60 Zoning District where signs are permitted;
however, Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18, requires that variances must be granted before a Sign
Permit can be issued.
Zoning Appeal Worksheet: Center Ithaca Signage
Appeal #: 2996
Location: 171 E. State St.
Appeal: Sign Variances
Applicant/ Owner: TTH Properties of Ithaca
Use District: CBD-60
Date: 7/31/15
Existing Signs & New Sign at 171 E. State Street (Center Ithaca)
Signs at front face of building facing The Commons:
1. Marquee three-sided sign with business name and address. Changed to streaming
advertisement. 80.2 SF (modified existing signage)
2. Wall sign 8.75 SF (existing)
3. Wall sign- 8.75 SF (existing)
4. ATM sign 1.25 SF (existing wall)
5. Center Ithaca 29.3 SF (new)
Rear of building facing Green Street garage:
6. Restrooms 5 SF (existing wall)
7. Center Ithaca 20 SF (existing)
8. Center Ithaca 20 SF (existing)
9. Door Sign 18 SF (existing)
Total Signage: 161.95 SF
Proposal:
Owner proposes to remove “Center Ithaca” sign on marquee and make a new wall sign
(29.3 SF) above the marquee. Section 272-6 B. (2), Commercial zones. Each
business is allowed two wall signs no greater than 50 SF apiece. This will be the ninth
wall sign on the building. Owner also requests to add LED light changing advertising on
the three sides of the marquee. Since proposed advertising on the marquee pertains to
businesses or events not located at 171 E. State Street, proposed signage is classified
as a “billboard” by the Sign Ordinance.
Section 272.5 G. prohibits any sign displaying flashing or intermittent lights, or lights
with changing degrees of intensity
Section 272-5 I. prohibits any billboards, or portable or mobile signs.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #2998 201 W. CLINTON STREET
(ZAC BOGGS)
Appeal of Zac Boggs and Isabel Fernández, owners of 201 W. Clinton Street, for Area Variances
from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Both the
existing house and the proposed dwelling have deficient rear yards.
The applicants propose converting an existing garage to a 2-story carriage house for use as a dwelling
unit. The proposal is compliant with the zoning district regulations except the proposed rear yard
setback. The current property only has one primary use. This building has a rear yard setback of 19
feet. The proposed carriage house will create a second primary use on the lot and will be closer to the
rear yard lot line than the main house. As designed, the carriage house will have a rear yard setback
of 12.25 feet; required is a rear yard of 31.4 feet for both dwellings.
The property at 201 W. Clinton Street is in an R-2b Use District where the proposed carriage house is
a permitted use. However, Section 325-38 requires an Area Variance be granted before a Building
Permit can be issued.
City of IthacaBoard of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal Number2998Address201 W. Clinton St.Use DistrictR-2bDate07/31/15ApplicantZac BoggsOwnerZac BoggsApplication Type:Column Number234567891011121314/1516Column TitleUseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageClinton FrontGeneva frontOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building HeightExisting Condition and Usetwo familygarage>612,622100.352<3524%44253219 feetDistrict Regulations for Existing1 + 2 familygarage53,0003533535%1010531.4 feetNote Non-Conforming ConditionsokokokokokokokokokokokDEFProposed Condition and/or Usecarriage>612,622100.352<3025%carriage N.A.carriage N.A.5.512.25 feetDistrict Regulation for Proposedhouse66,00035335355%531.4 feetNote Non-Conforming Conditions for ProposalokokokokokokokokDEFNotes: The carriage house will be a second primary use on the property at 201 W.Clinton.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #3001 171 E. STATE STREET CENTER ITHACA
(FROST TRAVIS)
Appeal of Frost Travis, on behalf of TTH Associates of Ithaca, LLC, owner of 171 E. State Street
(Center Ithaca), for Area Variance from Section 325-8, Columns 10 and 14/15, Percentage of Lot
Coverage and Rear Yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant is installing a Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power (CCHP) system in the Center
Ithaca basement. Operation of this system will require installation of an exterior heat dump radiator
designed to expel the excess heat from the power system. The heat dump radiator requires lines that
connect to the interior system, as well as two exhaust fans. The applicant proposes to enclose the
heat dump radiator equipment in an enclosure measuring 8.5’ x 18.33’ x 8’ in height and locate the
enclosed mechanical equipment in the service alley at the back of 171 E. State Street. The applicant
states this is the best practical location for the equipment, even though the location will be in the
property’s required rear yard setback.
The property at 171 E. State Street has an existing 9’4”-deep rear yard, which extends the length of
the property approximately 239 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard that is no less than
10 feet. The proposed mechanical equipment enclosure will extend 8.5 feet into the rear yard for a
distance of 14.33 feet.
District Regulations allow the property to have 100% lot coverage, except as required for rear yard.
The existing lot coverage is approximately 91%; however, because the rear yard is deficient, the
property at 171 E. State Street is also non-conforming with respect to lot coverage zoning
requirements. Furthermore, the proposed mechanical equipment enclosure will increase the existing
non-conforming lot coverage conditions from 91% to 91.4%.
The property at 171 E. State Street is in the CBD-60 and CBD-140 Zoning Districts where the
Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power system is apllowed; however, Section 325-38 requires that
variances must be granted before a Building Permit can be issued.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal
APPEAL #3002 325 W. BUFFALO STREET
(MELISSA SHAMES)
Appeal of Melissa Shames, owner of 325 W. Buffalo Street, for variances from Section 325-8,
Columns 10, 11, 12, and 13, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side
Yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant wants to build an 80-SF deck at the back of a two-family dwelling at 325 W. Buffalo
Street as a means of moving larger furniture pieces into the building. This 12’ x 6.67’ deck will be
located in a corner recess towards the back of the house and will not create or exacerbate existing
yard deficiencies. However, the property already exceeds allowable lot coverage and the deck
addition will cause the percentage of lot coverage to increase. The existing percentage of lot
coverage is 44%; the deck will increase the percentage to 46%. The front, side, and other side yard
also have existing deficiencies. The front yard is 6 feet; required is 10 feet. The side yard is 6.6 feet;
required is 10 feet. The other side yard is 1.8 feet; required is 5 feet.
The property at 325 W. Buffalo Street is in an R-2b Zoning District, where the use is permitted;
however, Section 325-38 requires that a Zoning Variance be granted before a Building Permit can be
issued.
City of IthacaBoard of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal Number3002Address325 W. Buffalo St.Use DistrictR-2bDate08/07/15ApplicantMelissa ShamesOwnerMelissa ShamesApplication Type:Area VarianceColumn Number234567891011121314/1516Column TitleUseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageFront YardSide YardOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building HeightExisting Condition and Usetwo family garage23689.436.032<3544%66.61.834 feetDistrict Regulations for ExistingTwo Family Zonegarage2None Required3,0003533535%1010525.5 feetNoneNote Non-Conforming ConditionsokokokokokokokDEFDEFDEFDEFokProposed Condition and/or Usetwo familygarage23689.436.032<3546%66.61.834 feetDistrict Regulation for ProposedTwo Family Zonegarage2None Required3,0003533535%1010525.5 feetNoneNote Non-Conforming Conditions for ProposalokokokokokokokDEFDEFDEFDEFokNotes:420 SF garage is 1 foot from rear yard - required is 3 feet - and is 1.3 feet from side yard - required is 3 feet.