HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-17 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda OTHR� CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St.—Third Floor Ithaca,NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning& Economic Development
Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/lURA 607-274-6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
APPLICANT OVERHEAD PROJECTOR NOTE:
If you have a disability & would like specific The City only has a VGA plug/cable available to connect
accommodation to participate, please contact the to our overhead projector. If you need to connect
City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 p.m., 2-3 business another way,you will need to provide your own ADAPTOR.
days (not including weekends/holidays) before the (Macs & many newer, lighter laptops may not have a
meeting. VGA port.)
REVISED
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
AGENDA
The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on SEPTEMBER 26TH , 2017 in
COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
Start Times:Start times are approximate only—APPLICANTs are responsible for being available at whatever time(s)their agenda item(s)is actually discussed.
AGENDA ITEM Approx. Start Time
1. Agenda Review 6:00
2. Special Order of Business- Draft Design Guidelines for Collegetown and Downtown–Megan Wilson 6:01
Special Order of Business–Brindley St Bridge Update–Addisu Gebre- Engineering 6:30
3. Privilege of the Floor(3-minute maximum per person —if you will be speaking about a project with a scheduled 6:50
PUBLIC HEARING below b,you are highly encouraged to speak at that time)
4. Site Plan Review
A Project: 709 West Court Street (Housing) 7:10
Location: 326&328 N Meadow St. and 709–713 W Court Street
Applicant: Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP for Lakeview Health Services Inc.
Actions: O Consideration of Preliminary& Final Approval
Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF
and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building will
contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room, laundry
facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference room, utility rooms,
and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard,
and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the removal of five
structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under
the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (1) (k) and (n), and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance on August 22, 2017.
B Project: Elm St Apartments 7:30
Location: 203-211 Elm St
Applicant: Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Inc. (INHS)
Actions: O Public Hearing 11 Determination of Environmental Significance
Project Description: The proposed project consists of the demolition of a two single family homes and one duplex
and the construction of a single 12,585 SF apartment building with 13 dwelling units, parking for six vehicles, and
other associated site improvements. Due to the slope of the site, the building will have 2 stories facing Elm Street
and three stories in the rear. The project requires the consolidation of three tax parcels. The project is in the R-3a
Zoning district and is seeking two area variances for relief from rear yard setback and parking requirements. This is a
Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (1)(h)[3], and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) and is subject to environmental review.
C Project: Duplex 7:50
Location: 217 Columbia Street
Applicant: Charlie O'Connor for 985 Danby Rd LLC
Actions:
ODeclaration of Lead Agency Metermination of Environmental Significance O Potential
Consideration of Preliminary& Final Approval
Project Description:The applicant is proposing to install a duplex with one 3- bedroom apartment on each floor. The
new structure is proposed to be sited directly behind the existing duplex on the property. As the project will
increase the off-street parking required from two to four spaces, the applicant is proposing to shift the existing curb
cut to the east and install an expanded parking area and drive aisle along the eastern property line. The project also
includes removing a 30"dbh oak and one street tree, closing the existing curb cut, installing a fence, landscaping and
walkways. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and
is subject to environmental review.
Project: Apartments 8:10
Location: 311 College Ave (The Nines)
Applicant: Jagat P Sharma for Todd Fox
Actions: O Declaration of Lead Agency O Public Hearing O Review of FEAF Parts 2 &3
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a six story, 80' high building plus basement. The first
floor will have an approximately 825 SF commercial space and five studio apartments, upper floors will have a
combination of 21 studio and 24 loft apartments for a total of 45 dwelling units. The applicant's intended market is
students. Project development will require the removal/ demolition of the existing structure and all associated site
features. The existing building incorporates the original Number Nine Fire Station and was identified as a structure
worthy of further research in a 2009 study titled Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy or Detailed Research; Icons
of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features. The project is in the MU-2
Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 13.(1)(k) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) and is subject to environmental review.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 2
Project: Bridges Cornell Heights Residence (Senior Housing) 8:30
Location: 105 Dearborn Place
Applicant: Elizabeth Classen Ambrose
Actions: O Declaration of Lead Agency O Public Hearing O Review of FEAF Parts 2 &3
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a two story single family residence with 12 bedrooms
to house up to 16 people on the .446 acre lot. The building will have a footprint of approximately 4,150 5F,
including porches. Site improvements include a porte couchere, a driveway and parking area for nine cars, three
patios, walkways and landscaping plantings. The site is currently vacant. Site development will require the removal
of approximately 25 trees of various sizes. The applicant is proposing to use the Landscape Compliance method,
which requires Planning Board approval for placement of the parking area. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District
and the Cornell Heights Local Historic District and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (1)(h)(4) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4
(b)(11) and is subject to environmental review.
4. Zoning Appeals 8:50
#3081, 203-211 Elm Street,Area Variance
#3082, 228 Geneva St,Area Variance
#3083, 105 Hudson St,Area Variance
S. Old/New Business 9:00
A. Planning Board Report Regarding the Proposed Local Historic Landmark Designation of 411-415
College Avenue-The Chacona Block
B. Upcoming Planning Board Recommendation to Approve Draft Design Guidelines for Collegetown &
Downtown—discussion
6. Reports 9:30
A. Planning Board Chair(verbal)
B. Director of Planning& Development (verbal)
C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal)
7. Approval of Minutes:August 22,2017, July 25, 2017,April 25, 2017 (time permitting) 9:50
8. Adjournment 9:55
ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE
You may access this agenda (including attachments) by going to the "Agenda Center" on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/agendacenter), under "Planning &
Development Board." For ease-of-access, a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda is always accessible on the Planning Board home page:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/354/Planning-Development-Board.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 3
RE: Planning Board- Project Review Committee Agenda 9-19-17
George McGonigal
Sent:Monday,September 18,2017 6:32 AM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Cynthia Brock;JoAnn Cornish
Good morning,Lisa,
I would like to make some comments about current projects in the First Ward to be reviewed this week.
203-209 Elm St.: My concerns here are the same as those submitted by the Conservation Advisory Council. I am
particularly concerned with the retaining wall proposed for the rear of the site,and the appeal to waive rear set back
requirements. I think this will have negative effects on properties down hill on Floral Ave.,including property values and
storm water issues. I believe if this project were to be scaled back to a smaller foot print,with perhaps less setback from Elm
St.,these down hill issues behind the new building and the need to build a retaining wall for parking area could be resolved.
709 West Court St./326-328 Meadow St.: My concern here is two-fold.First,I am worried about the safety and
vulnerability of so many handicapped people being housed on this extremely busy comer of Meadow and Court Streets.In
addition to being a not very pedestrian friendly part of the city,at night it can be a not very friendly part of the city period. I
would like for Lakeview to please address these concerns.
Additionally,and for related reasons,I think the project is too big for this neighborhood.I'd like to see more set back from
the street,and the upper stories,if not reduced,set back further.
In my opinion,the scale of this building is wrong. It would not fit the neighborhood physically,but more importantly it
would house a large number of residents with special needs in a spot where it might be very difficult to insure their safety,
and their enjoyment of their living space.
217 Columbia St.: If it is too late to stop this project through the new overlay zoning,then I think the storm water design
should be guided by the recommendations of the City's Stormwater Officer,Scott Gibson.
Thank you,Lisa.
yours,
George McG
George McGonigal
Common Council,First Ward
tel: 272-0639
From: Lisa Nicholas
Sent: Wednesday,September 13,2017 12:49 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Subject: Planning Board-Project Review Committee Agenda 9-19-17
Please find attached the agenda for the Project Review Committee meeting of the Planning and Development Board,
scheduled for this coming Tuesday,September 19,2017,8:30 a.m.,in the Second Floor Conference Room,City Hall, 108 E.
Green St.,Ithaca.
The agenda is also accessible either directly via the link pasted below(along with all associated attachments)or by going to
the"Agenda Center"on the City website.
Agenda with Attachments: http://www.cityofithaca.org/A2endaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09192017-1455
Lisa Nicholas,AICP,Senior Planner
TROWBRIDGE
WOLF
MICHAELS
iiii
September 18, 2017 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Department of Planning and Development
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
Re: Site Plan Review additional information for the Lakeview Multiuse Building at 709 West Court Street
Dear JoAnn and Members of the Planning Board:
This letter transmits to you the Site Plan Review additional material for the Lakeview Multiuse Building at 709
West Court Street. This includes a memo describing the Foundation Monitoring Plan, as requested by the
planning board, which describes the practices that will be used to ensure that disruption from pile driving
operations are properly controlled.
On behalf of those involved, we look forward to reviewing the project with you and members of the Planning
and Development Board at the September 26th Planning Board meeting. At that meeting we are hoping to
receive action on the following items: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval.
Sincerely,
1 •
Peter Trowbridge
Principal
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP
1001 West Seneca Street,Suite 201 Ithaca,New York 14850 ph:607.277.1400
www.twm.la
MEMO E P
To: TWM — James Fruechtl
Plan Architects — Mark Pandolf
Re: Lakeview @ 709 — 713 W Court Street, Ithaca, NY
Foundation Monitoring Plan
Date: August 29, 2017
From: David Elwyn
Cc: M. Palmer— E&P
COMMENTS
Lakeview at 709 W Court Street will be a five-story mixed use building with adjacent at-grade parking
to be constructed on the south side of West Court Street west of Meadow Street. The building will be
founded on steel pipe piles driven to suitable bearing strata from 70' — 85' below grade.
Pile Driving Operation:
For this project, the recommended piles and pile installation procedure will be steel pipe piles
installed using a hydraulic pile driver, similar to piles used recently for the INHS project at 210
Hancock Street. As pile installation for the Hancock Street project was recently completed and
closely monitored, we have very good representative data representing local soil conditions. For 210
Hancock Street, 170 steel pipe piles were installed between August 11, 2016 and September 1,
2016. The pile driving operation was continuously monitored for noise and vibration. Daily decibel
readings taken within 25' of the pile driver were in the mid to upper 90's, with maximum recorded
levels of 104 on one occasion, 103 on one occasion, and 102 on four occasions.
Vibration monitors (seismographs) were installed in five locations around the perimeter of the
Hancock Street project and were continuously monitored by Vibra-Tech Engineers Inc., an
independent vibration monitoring specialist firm employed by the Owner. An alarm vibration level of
0.20"/second was used for this project, based on published industry data. This level is well below the
level at which construction-induced ground vibration would cause damage to neighboring properties.
The alarm level was never reached during pile driving operations. The maximum recorded vibration
level was 0.225"/second, which occurred on 8/9/16. The construction operation underway at that
time was breaking-up existing pavement.
The hydraulic pile driver used at Hancock Street and recommended for this project was
recommended by the pile installation company, Ferraro Pile and Shoring Inc. specifically to reduce
duration of construction, noise and vibration. A letter from Ferraro on this equipment
recommendation is attached. 170 steel piles were installed at Hancock Street over a three-week
period. For this Lakeview project, we expect a similar overall duration for the pile driving operation
Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC, 213 E. Seneca St, Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-5060
MEMO E P
even though the number of piles will be less, due to required mobilization, set-up, staging and
demobilization.
To ensure that noise, vibration, and disruption from pile driving operations are properly controlled, we
will include in our bid specifications requirements similar to what was used for the Hancock Street
project, including:
- Building condition surveys of adjacent properties prior to construction. Proposed
requirements to be followed are attached (Specification 00 31 21).
- Continuous vibration monitoring during construction by an independent vibration
monitoring engineer. Proposed requirements to be followed are attached (Specification
31 0913).
- Surveys of existing adjacent construction for level control prior to and during construction
- Strict compliance with the City ordinance for construction operations, including allowable
work days and work hours.
- Completion of a Daily Pile Driving Log by the Project Construction Manager, to provide
daily documentation of foundation construction operations including information on pile
installation, vibration monitoring, and noise monitoring during pile driving operations (copy
of the proposed Daily Log Form is attached).
Please contact us if you have any questions on the above or if any additional information is required
at this time.
Regards,
David L. Elwyn, P.E.
Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers, PLLC
Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC, 213 E. Seneca St, Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-5060
709-713 W Court Street, Ithaca, NY
Lakeview Court Street
SECTION 00 31 21 — PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY
A. The objective of the pre-construction survey is to assess the condition of the buildings
within a 100' distance from pile driving operations for the purpose of developing a pre-
construction condition baseline
1.2 REFERENCES
A. NYS DOT EI 05-044 Special Specification for Building Condition Survey and Vibration
Monitoring (Non-Blasting).
B. NYS DOT Item 634.9901 17 Building Condition Survey
1.3 SUBMITTALS
A. Submit name and qualifications of the firm selected to conduct the Preconstruction
Survey.
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS
A. The Contractor shall engage the services of a firm capable of furnishing a New York
State licensed Professional Engineer to conduct a condition survey of the existing
buildings shown in Attachment A of this specification. This firm shall have been in
business a minimum of 5 years and shall have completed similar pre-construction
building surveys on a minimum of 3 previous projects.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.1 NOT USED
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.1 BUILDING CONDITION SURVEYS
A. Building Condition surveys shall identify and document the following for each property
surveyed:
1. Photographic and videotape documentation of the interior and exterior condition of
the building(s).
2. Extent and location of existing signs of building distress such as cracks, spalling,
signs of settlement, flooding, leaking, etc.
PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS 00 31 21- 1
709-713 W Court Street, Ithaca, NY
Lakeview Court Street
B. Provide two copies of all documentation of each building condition survey.
C. Information to be provided by the Owner— Consent and Release.
1. The Owner will furnish a list of the address of each property to be included in the
Preconstruction Building Survey. It is the Contractor's responsibility to contact these
property owners and/or Occupants and to schedule a Building Condition Survey
assessment with them for each property listed.
2. The Owner will provide a Consent Agreement to be signed by each Property Owner
and/or Occupant prior to entering their property for the purpose of conducting the
Preconstruction Building Condition Survey.
3. The Owner will provide a Release Agreement to be signed by each Property Owner
and/or Occupant who declines to allow for the inspection of their property.
END OF SECTION 00 31 21
PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS 00 31 21-2
709-713 W Court Street, Ithaca, NY
Lakeview Court Street
SECTION 31 09 13 — GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY
A. Work included in this section shall consist of installing, maintaining and monitoring
specialized vibration monitoring equipment (seismographs) to determine peak particle
velocities prior to and throughout Pile Driving activities.
1.2 REFERENCES
A. NYS DOT EI 05-044 Special Specification for Building Condition Survey and Vibration
Monitoring (Non-Blasting).
B. NYS DOT Item 634.9902 17 Vibration Monitoring (Nonblasting)
1.3 SUBMITTALS
A. Submit name and qualifications of the firm selected to perform Vibration Monitoring.
B. Submit to the Engineer a written Vibration Monitoring Plan a minimum of 10 work days
prior to the start of pile driving operations. See below for minimum requirements of
the Vibration Monitoring Plan.
C. Submit to the Engineer manufacturer's literature on the required 3-component
seismographs, capable of measuring particle velocity in three mutually perpendicular
directions, including the manufacturer's name, model number, and documentation of
factory calibration performed within the previous 12 month period.
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS
A. The Contractor shall engage the services of a Vibration Monitoring Consultant who has
performed Vibration Monitoring Services on a minimum of two projects in the past five
years, where the Vibration Monitoring Consultant has satisfactorily monitored
construction operations by recording maximum peak particle velocities (PPV's).
Include contact information for each reference.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
A. Vibration monitoring equipment shall be capable of recording measured vibration levels
and real-time notification to a minimum of 5 people via cell phone texts, email
messages, and/or cell phone calls each time the "Alert" PPV level is reached.
1. Safeguard Seismic Unit (SSU) 3000 series microprocessor-controlled
ground vibration and air overpressure recorder by Geosonics, Warrendale,
PA or approved equal.
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING 31 09 13- 1
709-713 W Court Street, Ithaca, NY
Lakeview Court Street
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.1 VIBRATION MONITORING PLAN
A. The Vibration Monitoring Plan shall include but not be limited to the following items:
1. The scheduled start date and length of construction operations which require
vibration monitoring
2. Locations for the vibration monitoring devices. Required protection for the
devices and source of power. Appropriate details for anchoring and security.
3. The procedure for tracking PPV throughout Pile Driving Operations, and for
correlating PPV with Pile Driving Operations.
4. Persons or companies responsible for initial set-up and ongoing
maintenance of the monitoring devices.
5. Procedures to be used for ongoing remote monitoring and notification when
established thresholds are reached, including an approved list of person's to
be notified when the "Alert" level is reached.
6. Procedures to be used for recording and periodic reporting of vibration
monitoring.
B. Methods and Procedures
1. The Engineer, Contractor's on-site Superintendent, and other person's as
identified in the approved Vibration Monitoring Plan shall be notified via cell
phone texts, email messages, and/or cell phone calls each time the "Alert"
PPV level is reached.
a. The Alert level is to be set at 0.2"/s measured no closer than 25' from
the closest pile driver.
b. If PPV levels exceed .5 /sec at 25' for transient vibrations (duration <
1 second), and 0.3"/sec for steady state vibrations (duration >1
second), Contractor is to cease pile driving operations. Adjustments
to Pile Driving Procedures may be required. Pile Driving Operations
shall not continue without the approval of the Engineer of Record.
C. At the completion of the work, the Vibration Monitoring Consultant
shall submit to the Engineer a written report documenting and
summarizing the recorded Vibration (PPV) levels over the duration of
Pile Driving operations.
END OF SECTION 31 09 13
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING 31 09 13-2
To: SUPERSEDED BY New York State
Department of El
EB 07-009 = Transportation
ENGINEERING 05-045
EFFECTIVE 3/2/07 — INSTRUCTION
Title: DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR BUILDING CONDITION SURVEY AND VIBRATION
MONITORING (NONBLASTING)
Distribution: Approved:
❑ Manufacturers (18) ❑ Surveyors (33)
❑ Local Govt. (31) ® Consultants (34)
® Agencies (32) ® Contractors (39) /s/ Robert L. Sack 23DEC05
❑ ( ) Robert L. Sack, Deputy Chief Engineer Date
Research
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 maybe 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
Contractors' construction procedure(s).
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.
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.
Desiqn Considerations
The use of the special specification with respect to "adjacent sensitive buildings, structures, or
utilities" should be discussed with the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau Engineering 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)('). 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)('), as shown in Figure 1:
EI 05-045 Page 1 of 4 L 09/07/06
20 mm/s (.8"/s) max at 25'.
Damage threshold is
approx 50 mm/s (2"/s)
1000 Typical Earth Vibrations
i due to Construction
(after Wiss, 1981)
I.
fn 100 — — — t 1 Ib BA)edded Dparnite
0 112 Ton Ba 11. 10 ft Svving
Diesel pole Driver, 36,000 ft-hb
f 10 0 Vibratory Pile Driver
x
o — —Pavement Breaker, 6 ft Dfop
F * ► 2 Ton Drop Ball. 40 ft Drop
+ Caisson DrillMg & Large dozer
1
� �Troc#�s
OL Jack Hammer
-Y +
—x—Crane Idling
--+—Smal I Dozer
+ \ Threshold of Perception— — Damage Threshold- Residential
Damage E hreshola- Commercial
1
25' '10 100 1000
Distance frorn Source, rn
Figure 1 — Construction Vibrations as a Function of Distance, after Wiss (1981)
Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variet of
construction activities with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity levels�z�. 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(Z). 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 states "in the absence of more stringent requirements,
the maximum quantity of explosives allowed per delay period shall be based on a maximum
particle velocity of 50 mm/sec at the nearest structure to be protected". Considering 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.
EI 05-045 Page 2 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, consult with the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau's
Engineering Geology Section.
Consultation
If the designer determines the adjacent distance may pose a potential for damage, consultation
with the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau's Engineering Geology 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
The Contractor's attention is directed to 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
damage caused by or related to the Contractor's operations shall be repaired 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.
EI 05-045 Page 3 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 (5.08 cm/sec (2.0
construction operation)
in/sec))
(At a distance from a given pile to (2.54 cm/sec (1.0
model the distance from closest pile to in/sec))
the building: monitoring impact at that
distance to make adjustments to pile
driving operation as work proceeds (etc.)
toward building)
(etc.)
Construction Vibra ons and Their Impact on Vibration-Sensitive Facilities, Hal Amick and Michael Gendreau, Colin Gordon &
Associates, Presente at ASCE Construction Congress 6, February 22,2000.
(2) Transit Noise and ibration 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.
EI 05-045 Page 4 of 4 L 09/07/06
PILE DRIVING DAILY LOG
Project: 709-713 Court Street,Ithaca,NY Date:
Owner: Lakeview Court Street Log Completed By:
Architect: PLAN Architectural Studio,PC Pile Size:
Structural Engineer: Elwyn&Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC
Construction Manager: Required Blow Count:
Pile Contractor: At Stroke(Ft):
Bottom Filled Upper Cap Seismic
1'st Section Splice 2'nd Section Total Plate With Section Plate Alarm
Length in Used Length in Cut-Off Installed Cut-Off Blow Count for the Last Installed Water Coated Installed Triggered
Grid Reference Pile# Leads (Y/N) Leads Length Length Elevation 3' 1' 2" 1" Stroke (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)
Remarks: Decibel Level Readings @ 25'from Pile:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Pile# Level: Time:
Note obstructions,pile defects,or any irregularities and what corrective action was taken for each effected pile#.
213 E Seneca St,Ithaca,NY Elwyn Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC www.ElwynPalmer.com
Ferraro Pile&Shoring Inc. 13590 Genesee Street
oundations P.O. Box
85
Piling FCrittenden,,
NY 14038
Phone (716) 937-4800 Fax (716) 937-0355
March 2, 2016
Hayner Hoyt Corporation
625 Erie Blvd West
Syracuse, NY 13204
Re: 210 Hancock Street
Ithaca, New York
Pile Submittal
Attn: Matthew Herron
Dear Sir;
We are hereby submitting you the details of the Hydrualic Hammer that will be
used on this project. As we discussed this hammer is significantly different than an
impact hammer. This hammer has the ability to infinitely control the stroke and
energy imparted to the pile to minimize the noise that is associated with an impact
hammer.
This hammer is ideally suited for this project. This hammer energy can be
adjusted during driving of each pile to minimize the vibration and noise. Careful
installation procedures will be followed and adjusted during the pile installation and in
conjunction with the Vibration Monitoring to ensure that the thresholds are not
exceeded.
If you require any further information please contact me as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Nemec
Project Manager
Ferraro Pile & Shoring Inc.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Preliminary&Final Approval Apartments (Supportive and Affordable Housing)
326 &328 N Meadow St, 709-713 W Court St
Planning&Development Board
September 26,2017
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for a housing project at 326 & 328 N. Meadow St. and 709-713 W Court St. by Trowbridge Wolf
Michaels for Lakeview Mental Health, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF and
GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building
will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room,
laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference room,
utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south-facing
exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the
removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") §176-4 (1) (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11)
and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: Tompkins County Planning Commissioner, Tompkins County Department of Health (TCDOH),
NYS Homes and Community Renewal (HCR), NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA)
and NYS Office of Mental Health Services, all potentially involved agencies, did consent to the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board's being Lead Agency for this project, and
WHEREAS: : the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action, did, on July 25, 2017, declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in
accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on August 22,2017, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on August 22, 2017, review and
accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff, drawings titled "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101)", "Utility
Plan(C102)", "Details (C201)", "Demolition Plan(L101)"and"Grading Plan(L301)"dated 6/30/17; and"First
and Upper Building Floor Plans (Al)", "Building Roof Plans (A1.2)", "North and East Building Elevations
(A2.1)" and "South and West Building Elevations (A2.2) all dated 7/05/17 and "Court and Meadow Street
Contextual Perspective from Northeast", "Court and Meadow Street Architectural Perspective from Northeast"
and "Court and Meadow Street Architectural Perspective from Northwest" dated 7/19/17; and "Layout Plan
(L201)", "Planting Plan (L401)" and "Site Details (L501 & L502)" dated 8/15/17; and all prepared by
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP et al. and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments have been considered,
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on August 22, 2017 determine that the proposed project would result in no
significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and
WHEREAS: this Board has on September 26, 2017, reviewed and accepted as adequate new and revised
drawings titled: "Layout Plan (L201)", "Site Details (L502)", "North and West Building Elevations (A2.1)",
"South and East Building Elevations (A2.2)", "Contextual Perspective From the Northeast", "Contextual
Perspective From the Southeast", and"Shade Study(two Sheets)"dated 9/12/17; and all prepared by Trowbridge
Wolf Michaels LLP et al. and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the applicant has submitted a memo and supporting information from David Elwyn of Elwyn &
Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC to James Fruechlt Trowbridge Wolf Michaels dated August 29, 2017 that
describes in detail the type and duration of foundation work as well as the specifications for monitoring that will
be included in bid specification requirements for the contractor,now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary and final
site plan approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to Planning Board of lighting and signage details, and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a detail showing the spacing/seams between the sections of the
metal panel system, and
iii. Pile installation shall be limited to 8 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday (or Saturday 9 am to 7:30 pm
with advance notification to and approval by the Director of Planning and Development), and
iv. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
V. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and
vi. A staging plan must being approved by the Building Division and Engineering before issuance of a
building permit.
vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign
permits,tree permits, street permits, etc.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
CEQR-Negative Declaration Apartments (Rebuild)
203-209 Elm Street
Planning&Development Board
August 22,2017
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for construction of an apartment building at 203-209 Elm St. by Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood
Housing Services (INNS), and
WHEREAS: the proposed project consists of the demolition of a two single family homes and one duplex and
the construction of a single 12,585 SF apartment building with 13 dwelling units, parking for six vehicles, and
other associated site improvements. Due to the slope of the site, the building will have 2 stories facing Elm
Street and three stories in the rear. The project requires the consolidation of three tax parcels. The project is in
the R-3a Zoning district and is seeking two area variances for relief from rear yard setback and parking
requirements, and
WHEREAS: This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") §176-4 (1)(h)[3], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4 (11) and is
subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: it was requested that the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner, Tompkins County
Department of Health, NYS Homes and Community Renewal, and the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, all
potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning Board being Lead Agency for the
environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: all above agencies either provided written consent to the Planning Board or did not respond
within the required 30 day period,
WHEREAS: : the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on July 25, 2017, declare itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on August 22, 2017, reviewed
and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff, drawings titled: "Topographic and Survey Map No. 203,207,209
Elm Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated 3/25/17 and prepared by TG Miller "Existing
Conditions Plan (C-101)" "Demolition, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C-102)", "Layout Plan (C-103)",
"Grading and Utility Plan (C-104)" , "Details (C-201)", "Overall Landscape Plan (L-101)", "Overall Context
Aerial (L-102)", "Lower Level Plan(A-101)", "First Floor Plan(A-102)", "Second Floor Plan(A-103)", "Roof
Plan (A-104)", "First Floor Plan (A-102)", "Exterior Elevations (A-200)" , "Conceptual Building Sections (A-
301)" and "Sections (A301)" with a revision date of 8/15/17 and prepared by SWBR Architects et.al and
"Overall Site Plan"undated and prepared by SWBR Architects and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments have been considered,now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will
result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of
the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Lead Agency Mixed Use Apartments(45 Units)
311 College Ave
Planning&Development Board
September 26,2017
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review,require a Lead Agency be established for conducting Environmental
Review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for mixed use apartments at 311 College Ave by Jagat Sharma for Todd Fox, and
WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to construct a six story, 80' high building plus basement. The first floor
will have an approximately 825 SF commercial space and five studio apartments, upper floors will have a
combination of 21 studio and 24 loft apartments for a total of 45 dwelling units. The applicant's intended
market is students. Project development will require the removal/ demolition of the existing structure and all
associated site features. The existing building incorporates the original Number Nine Fire Station and was
identified as a structure worthy of further research in a 2009 study titled Collegetown Historic Resources
Worthy or Detailed Research; Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and
Landscape Features. The project is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District(CAFD) and requires Design
Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") §176-4 B.(l)(k) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) and
is subject to environmental review,now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for
the environmental review of the project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
CEQR-Negative Declaration Duplex
217 Columbia Street
Planning&Development Board
September 26,2017
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for a housing project at 217 Columbia Street by Charlie O'Connor, and
WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to install a duplex with one 3- bedroom apartment on each floor. The
new structure is proposed to be sited directly behind the existing duplex on the property. As the project will
increase the off-street parking required from two to four spaces, the applicant is proposing to shift the existing
curb cut to the east and install an expanded parking area and drive aisle along the eastern property line. The
project also includes removing a 30"dbh oak and one street tree, closing the existing curb cut, installing a fence,
landscaping and walkways. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: : the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action, did,on September 26,2017, declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on August 22, 2017, reviewed
and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled "Boundary and Topographic Map, No. 217
Columbia Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated 6/5/17 and prepared by TG Miller PC,
"Site Plan (CLO)", "Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (C2.0 & C2.1)", "Utility Plan (C3.0)" and
"Landscaping Plan (Alternate) (C4.OA)", "Detail Sheet (C5.0)" all dated 8/30/17 and prepared by Marathon
Engineering, and "Floor Plans & 3D Views (A101)", "Elevations (A200)'and "Fence Details (A500)", dated
8/30/17 and prepared by John Snyder Architects and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments have been considered,now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will
result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of
the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Preliminary&Final Approval Duplex
217 Columbia Street
Planning&Development Board
September 26,2017
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for a housing project at 217 Columbia Street by Charlie O'Connor, and
WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to install a duplex with one 3- bedroom apartment on each floor. The
new structure is proposed to be sited directly behind the existing duplex on the property. As the project will
increase the off-street parking required from two to four spaces, the applicant is proposing to shift the existing
curb cut to the east and install an expanded parking area and drive aisle along the eastern property line. The
project also includes removing a 30"dbh oak and one street tree, closing the existing curb cut, installing a fence,
landscaping and walkways. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and is subject to environmental
review, and
WHEREAS: : the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action, did,on September 26,2017, declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in
accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), &(3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS:the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on August 22,2017, and
WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on September 26, 2017,
reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff, drawings titled "Boundary and Topographic Map, No.
217 Columbia Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated 6/5/17 and prepared by TG Miller
PC, "Site Plan(C1.0)", "Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan(C2.0 &C2.1)", "Utility Plan(C3.0)"and
"Landscaping Plan (Alternate) (C4.OA)", "Detail Sheet (C5.0)" all dated 8/30/17 and prepared by Marathon
Engineering, and "Floor Plans & 3D Views (A101)", "Elevations (A200)'and "Fence Details (A500)", dated
8/30/17 and prepared by John Snyder Architects and other application materials, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and
other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received
comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on September 26, 2017 determine that the proposed project would result in
no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance,now, therefore, be
it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant preliminary and final
site plan approval to the project subject to the following conditions:
i. Submission to Planning Board of revised colored elevations showing a color compatible with the
exiting building, and
ii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised fence detail showing a design more compatible with the
residential neighborhood(e.g. shorter near the street or shorter overall) and
iii. Submission to the Planning Board of a revised utility plan showing a drain at the base of the driveway,
and
iv. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and
V. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and
vi. A staging plan must being approved by the Building Division and Engineering before issuance of a
building permit.
vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign
permits,tree permits, street permits, etc.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
Mixed-Use Building
311 College Ave, Ithaca, NY
Project Narrative: August 14, 2017
Updated: September 19, 2017
The project involves demolition of the existing building known as 'The Nines'
and construction of a new six story plus basement Mixed-Use building. The
proposed building will comply with the zoning regulations for the area.
The project is located in MU-2 Zone which permits six story 80 ft high
building. The proposed building will be 80 ft high. Floor to floor heights are:
12 ft at first floor, 16 ft at 2nd 3rd 6th floors, and 10 ft at 4th and 5th floors.
First floor will have commercial space along College Avenue. Back area will
have five dwelling units. Upper five floors will have a total of 40 dwelling
units. 2nd 3rd and 6th floors will incorporate a mezzanine level sleeping area
within every dwelling unit. The basement will occupy project support areas
such as utility room, trash room, laundry, bike room, and a fitness center.
Recent developments within 200 ft of the project site include 'Dryden South'
at 205 Dryden Road, Cornell Business School along Dryden Road and
Linden Avenue, 'Collegetown Crossing' at 307 College Avenue. Earlier
developments were 312 College Avenue, and both sides of 400 block of
College Avenue.
In response to comments by the planning board at the sketch plan meeting
the building program has been rearranged. In doing so, the building height
has been reduced by about 10 ft from 80 ft plus parapet to 74 ft. and the
upper portion of the sixth floor is set back about 14 ft from the building face.
Civil Work Narrative:
Water—
The existing copper water service from the City water main on College
Avenue to the existing building will be disconnected at the main by the City
DPW at cost to the project. All remaining water piping and appurtenances
will be removed from the site by the project.
Water service to the new buildings will be supplied by the City of Ithaca
distribution system from their East Hill pressure grid. New fire and domestic
services will be ductile iron from the existing main on College Avenue.
Normal static water pressure at the main is approximately 96 psi. The
average daily water demand for the new building is estimated to be
approximately 2,300 gpd based on a total of 45 bedrooms and an estimated
water use of 50 gallons per day per bedroom. The existing distribution
system is believed to be more than adequate to supply the estimated
domestic water demands. The available fire flows and residual pressures for
the City system need to be determined but are expected to be adequate to
serve the building.
ARCHITECT 312 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone:(607)-272-9361 FAX:(607)-272-0505
Sanitary Sewer—
The existing sanitary service lateral from the City sanitary main on College
Avenue to the existing building will be disconnected at the main by the City
DPW at cost to the project. The lateral will be cut and capped at the
property line and all remaining piping and appurtenances will be removed
from the site by the project.
Sanitary improvements will include a new 6-inch gravity service lateral to the
new building from the existing sewer main on College Avenue. The service
will be equipped with sanitary trap outside the buildings. Pumping of
sanitary waste for any sanitary fixtures or floor drains at the basement level
will be required given the depth of the basement below the existing sanitary
main in the street.
Treatment of all sewage is provided by the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Facility (IAWWTF) on Third Street. The capacity of the collection
system and treatment plant to accept any increases in sewage flows from
the property is believed adequate but will need to be confirmed with the City.
Stormwater Drainage -
The site slopes down generally from east to west and stormwater runoff from
the site drains overland to College Avenue. Roof runoff from the existing
building is collected in gutters and downspouts which discharge to the
surface primarily in the alley north of the building. The small vegetated area
behind the building drains overland to the alley. Minor areas along the south
edge of the site drain onto the neighboring City fire station to the south.
There are no known or charted below grade storm sewers on the site.
Stormwater improvements will include a new storm manhole at the back of
the curb on College Avenue west of the building. A 6" PVC storm pipe will
connect the new manhole to the closest City storm sewer structure located
on the opposite side of College Avenue south and west of the site. A new 4"
PVC gravity storm service, primarily for roof runoff, will exit the building
below grade at the front of the building and will connect to the proposed new
manhole in the street. Foundation drains at the basement level will drain to
a below-slab sump and any groundwater will be pumped up to the gravity
storm service inside the building. One new drainage inlet will be located in
the alley north of the building just outside the street line. The new inlet which
will be connected to the new manhole in the street with a 6" PVC gravity
sewer pipe. Most areas of the site outside of the building roof will drain
overland to the new inlet.
Stormwater Management-
Based on the current design, the total area of soil disturbance on the site is
expected to be approximately 0.16 acres, and will not be required to
complete a `Full' Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or submit a
Notice of Intent to obtain permit coverage for stormwater discharges from the
NYSDEC. Although a Full SWPPP is not required, the project will likely
include more than 250 cy of excavation which requires a `Basic' SWPPP
permit from the City. No other thresholds in the City of Ithaca stormwater
regulations will be exceeded.
®! T 312 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone:(607)-272-9361 FAX:(607)-272-0505
A Basic SWPPP permit from the City will require an erosion and sediment
control plan with temporary measures to be installed and maintained during
demolition and construction. All temporary measures will be designed in
accordance with the current NYSDEC standards. Post-construction
stormwater management practices will not be required.
The City stormwater regulations also require projects disturbing less than
one acre to implement at least 2 practices identified by the NYSDEC as
"better site design practices." Given the site has previously been developed;
the project will inherently implement of a number of these practices, which
include the preservation of undisturbed areas and buffers, the reduction of
clearing, the location of projects in less sensitive areas, and the reduction of
impervious soil cover. Since the buildings will be multi-story, the practice of
reducing building footprints will also effectively be implemented.
Electric, Telecommunications and Gas -
Improvements to provide electric, telecom and gas services to the new
building will be determined by the respective utility companies and
coordinated with the project. Electric service is expected to be below grade
in conduit from an existing utility pole located near the northeast corner of
the site.
Telecom services are expected to be provided within below-grade conduit
extensions from existing conduits in the street on College Avenue
Gas service to the new building, if needed, is expected to be provided from
either the low- or medium-pressure gas lines in the street on College
Avenue. NYSEG is currently installing improvements to their distribution
system on College Avenue which are not shown on the project mapping.
These improvements will need to be documented and mapped prior to
completion of the utility design work.
IA®c � 312 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone:(607)-272-9361 FAX:(607)-272-0505
AD. am Alen FMth
NA-C. rohnomad
MMG N.T.S roltntioab T.G. MIUE& F.C.
d NGfERB+Ea su E~Tps
1aL l O C. on oerY3 r F- w..arrEPPcrn
lk mellron QO. eufts7q�Lg1ELRr .: - _ ;i sof-m-r+n
C.ki o1d�Easi1
-- F£ paPPvh}a f-
IC33. doxnl� - Pw. .tibUr
'
C.L. alMrr 6r PMC
ccea-. cwmxow PCC - 4 o111NYw
C1.4 cc+ract Ert1t41a PC clsti mbw
PRO
101 :PIRrt PT - of
IOIL ckpdi*irlm PVI dsePleal nlE+s.cltili - - r $
ENA. CNLe F _ _ _ PVT 2MA Tlrmdx� yyy _ •. - ,�
- REEPIR IoiLpPoaAnl aF
RCA PPiPL0P0Gtl—nn.rM pimy y1
13V..EL 4worlim REY M'iYxi - I 4 r � _ - - f - -
Sm `
+� fnYAwdwearsLrraLvn SOH sclo" -
I Ff iEW or FtiR S
16'AYV STA eafix%
PROSECT
rL+rrs rrallob .a �;�.��.
�, LOCATION
I SPE - lYP #_ -
MR, VAR
v�xr_
o.d :adsaiv..Ylr vc ,. x4 .
Rw Lwnrt ver vkFmdc yth
�... .
VPC ,ulLvi point eTelneYa
LF aw"ka u41 wlfeal dii6e4on �;�F�':� I � �+3: L� 4, i
!4+
LP U. fE6 ,,moi.=3.S- _
J.
w V" a
MH I..dw. wP1F w~wo*h6Ac -
wL1c
ux. Irsilllun Y-,F
I u1�t:. I�oLresous
STANDARD ABBREVIATIONSLOCATION MAP �
NOT T6 SCALE SCAM 1r-2.
Y x
5
L
i
S
}
k
I
1 0
a 3
-EILC77RL JIa CO& 1E7 wm SFJIIE ELFL'rtt A40 61S
TEM PM F;EN-
W7-3a-25W nrrm•
Jq=009M-IAS 3
BOG-572-1 i,b mm PrP oR m FaAa - - rm+Err vL SMELT LKE
-crape 5555
OF nwGl .6 uuAMnD Pgam E7 E-rM GRAS DDRIVLPe aF ry
snaps AND 77LL�6
p67-27.7-171e EMTWG PROPERTY,TDPCGRAP*W AND UTILITY IFFORLAMN SFKMN 6 BASED ON IAW HRED � DOSTNG DECIDUO S TSKE EXSTO S F€VCE UK
RAY HOLVA r
'FCFOGRLPJiIC & BOUHOAR'f Flo- 311 COLLEGE A'IEHUE' OVaTEQ 1ft2f2017 BY T.G. LYIPrn P.C.. AS (+-, E70511REG ILL171QE E705ERIC rat+sE
r-t
-MUER OM SIMAW: Om OF rfIIPCA waw AS FAcurES mm-P'NG By CITY OF rrw.I AHD RECENT SIM OBSERVATIONS. -
OAMR AM SEEM
E>mn+6 ORhuGE s4.E?: E7w'YIxG OrFRIEl4 16uTF5
sw-7n-1717 - E"SIM LMUnEES SYiOMIH ME IH APPAQ%IW ♦LY47E LOChTKM# . VERIFY DLT U)rAT*4 QF ALL
Esti[WHffWr, PE
uTILJ'IES 9EFARE eECNr+Hc cuwsTRucTIOH. HOTIFf oYc SAFELY rlEvr'rO1a€ {Dsxx E1SIH6 EIEr.,me IETEAS E7d51415 suao4RF SE+vE
-� +FROM 9E'At 5TD
E
1-BOD-M-7952}!L YMnwLa+ 2 WORKM DAYS PRIOR TO BEM94G 0N5FRUCTXw. E1SIDC CLEAMC. Ren r _ ti151R16 RI
sDT-73+-� sm E
04M rD`[x
- ALL CHU61510i1S Ta �LJ?IPJCS OR cuRes ARE TO f3eFp210R FACE Of BurLDIHc OR RICE OF m E13511HO CAswuvE oostlllG MTM SHEET TITLE
Tw 70im A GIBE CURB. ALL DIYEn5YDH5 ARE PERFEWXULAR OR PARLLLEL TO TK LWI€S FROM WHO4 TIC(ARE m E1lNT"Wau Am%t G PROPMD{JS PPE
w7_m-7875QRAYM urllEss DTiERINSE H61E0- SITE CIVIL
30OUJIM MMURrww .v VasTm Umfl7 ROLE DAL FROPO%D OVUM"U n M LEGEND &
MOM was TECHMM 1GY aRO1.P - LILTUu OF ELEYAmms is ASSUMED. — 035RHO ax mcm Sa sROPOSM SLVEFAi SVNM
w7-as7-7Y1q NOTES
MEM LIWAR _ oxo-gm Cu CT ELmym GF ALL DoinHG L1WIES AT THE cl)"EOTICM Rmwrs MID -M 00STNG SM Rasa St PROPOSED smRw SEW" o
FRERSPAFM tfl0'551HIGS wrFFY THE PROPOSED ILIPIWEIA09S PRIOR TO FARMATIHG SiRLECTURES OR NISTA<LNG C.0.+ RwlP armour M)FO ED vn.1Ec PIPE �4%�s/�T 'OB
667 5 IAPA�Oy"ENTS. NOnFY OMNER OF AW DSMPMOES OR CONFLICTS.
3EFT SiVFER rK ppoposm sNwpRr TRIP S.F. PIiDFMD SILT MCE yJ,F; E17-37
H Pswu"ORO WLK AS Sd
oE+�'I m slay
UTILITY OWNERS AND CONTACTS GENERAL MOTES LEGEND �y U
baCSf[7 f 1 oo,
NOT 70 SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCS FLS 1.+i }
o
T.G. MILLER, P.C.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
203 NOUN AURORA STREET
RNAc:.NEW YORK 14050
NWW.TCNILLERPC.DON
607-272-6477
1 3
Z
0
O
RW-,03.0
g / •.//�/j•/f" / / / ,//i r j/i/ 1111/ //./ �'� �
/// //
UNDEN AVENUE AssocNTEs(H0.) g
969w4-m2
12V LINDEN AVE
016Y3O7 // / t4�M�-17�19 �i/ •�// // WADE f /
og
'^ NIROFF ALONG BUILDING FACE,•
W.v. _ [ COFCRE7L N
Q ETEC.
T.C. G.V. FROIAL BUIL&NO •BRMK PAYFD ALLEY 102-- '. WANOOW METERS
SR*E01N COMMON '01.5 MCI
IOi.E Ll
W 01. DEED SAYS 8'WIDE
N 89'33'59°E 3 ,141_33' /
03:
wER N/ED.
10.4 / !
00.
"15 101.5 EM ELCV /, CCON.Sx00)J
COVERED co,—
IOU
CLWR
too
L`E/V/• / / % BRMX
OEN05r1N/N,LLC
(R-O)
w o 2015-0"75
6fo 9E127UNNAV
az/a /i, / ENI.
ELVATEO / / // /.f/�//f// /'r/ /// .'/ //�/ —.TsPAVER
~ PAVERS
9.5 99.9 101.1 101.4 //, / i, 1311
.:99.5 'r/
W - WATER
rz' sHurorF / / / ' // // J'// / / // , •: ¢$@ ,, � /Y1 }t
6,//
j „ ,� .. /`// / � ,/ f//, , ./ ,axe• /'ti
98.9 H” OS , / ���/� i/// / ;/ / /// •"14153 r/�//,, yo 3 tG2.T..-' _ _ LF��
2 Asx S 883359"W
10t 5 (NDE OF BWLDING COVERED IN
.� 77,
CONCRETE W 98,8 98.8 9848
W.V. CONCRETE YMIM `
G.V. LEDDER
- 98.1 8.t . , Sf .f4D-fD L�
//'� •' '//�� 1230 LINDEN AL£ M� Spy O
'
RNACA FIRE BUFRE D
EPARTNENi / /, •/i / /
PAVERS CONCRETE SIATKIN 9 / -/ /, 36771
W--91,7 $ DRIVEWAY // 745
W eA-10-172
1
O %' ��///% r i/ '/
LEGEND // • /"
aH. oVEREILRO
SawA1MY SEWER WIN r�
.R_
WATER
D-�(LAB WM
-M T171E INFORMAnoN N0 ER
O SK 317, LLC 1.)VERTICAL WO IS AN AFAVE S EN LO
WNHOLE ORD"SIRltMRE50 Uµ0 ANY W4I=PROVIDED W THE Uf1UR�AURID..�IPAWNESE
M VALVE INSTRUMENT No. 531713-001 LOUTN)HS N BE C10VVSIDMD APPROKWIE TNERE WY BE ONIER MOERCRoua Mf TIES AAV/OR
.C.O. CLEANOUT / '' AN
TAX MAP No. 64-10-18 W7MLs�OF UUNDTK LERMO.PoL�WD�VM AM EgStENCE�ON WS•rIS rAAVA EM APRESENTLY KNORK S NNOTOD AiBOQATIONsr OVE� FY
AREA— 0.104 ACRES ALL VTXMES PRIOR TO DLAON OR CONSLRUCTKK
m ONS VALVE NOTE: JJ W THE EVENT THAT MERE IS A MCRERINCY BETWEEN THE CONTENTS OF THE SIONED AND SEALED >
JD' UfIlIIY POLE
THIS SURVEY MAP PREPARED RHH= HARD CCP'D9ANNO AND THE CORRESPO w DWAl DRAWNIO TLE,THE HAA7 DOR'Wren AN CRIO'NA, 16
ENE77T OF AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE STAMP AND SIIX411DRE swu BE THE NNTROLLINC oDDUACNr. 6 i
PRONCE9.SUBIECT To ANY STATE OF
DEGdJUS TREE NAP REFERENCES: FACT TfWr AN LMA ABSTRACT OF
1.)'M7VEY YAP!M.JI,COLLEGE AVENUE.."DOTED TTRE WY SHOW. 6
E.E-I W.O ENTRANCE ET.E✓ATION AUWST a5,,9)B W T.O.MILLER P.C. - 0
0 IRON PIPE FUND I a,) DATED
ANP OF Jil Cd.LEOE AVE BY CAW.CRANENLL.
C.E a1TED JUNE 2T,1948
S
A CA.CULATED PONT
-
ti�...g.
N 89'40'1 2'C ,moe' _ _ _ _ �, ,,:qd �•.
SO-P. - •
RW-91.5 -OBE18�.'�' 0
�OFESSW\\F�"
SEAL10
f
0' 10' 20' 30' SHEET TITLE 1.
EXISTING
SITE I
CONDITIONS
DATE: JOB ND.
9/15/17
SCALE: E17-37
AS SHOWN
DRAWN BY: SHEET
TRT
CHECKM, C 101
FLS ;
o
T.G. MILLER, P.C, <
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
2003 NORTH AURORA STREET r
HACA,rvEW YORK 14850
60]-2]2-84]]
I Z
�I O
—1 Y
xSo
a
as
U g m
I �'g PROTECT, DO NOT DISTURB "1 w
R e EXISTING BUILDING,
I 2I o�2 WINDOW WELLS, ETC. I LINDEN AVFNLIE ASSOC4]CS(R.OJ � 2
5I 64-00T
.",o COORDINATE REMOVAL OF SAWCUT EXISTING ]N[1ka.A
`0 EXISTING GAS SERVICE uNDaaA(R.O.) yTN LINEN AVE g
eaD/+D9 } PAVEMENT 3
WITH NYSEG eIJ17 ]Ny 54-TO-T9 0 I cARACE
rrl,E
XISTING SANITARY SERVICE o W
BE REMOVED. SE ,1NRS. WELL "� - oEM.E(EV.W INRES RUNN4VC �fp4.0' (FILLED) E O BVftdND FACE � i O
I II %T.0 'aRICW PAVED ALEY' WIKUL
NDOW 40
[Y] PAKRS' SHARED IN CCAINON BRICK — — —
DEED SAYS 8'WOE
'
11 (COALSHOOT) _ p
SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENTS. COVERED C 'ETE WAK eRrcK CLEAR AND GRUB
a
CONFIRM WITH OWNER LIMITS 'i - a EXISTING LAWN AREA
OF PAVEMENT TO BE ENovDNNrIY.LLC(R.a1
REMOVED WITHIN STREET. I„ - POTS- N AVETNr 54-10-9
[T31 LWOEN A } r
;li G ELEVA]ED - � a/.y�� GZl a
PAVERS
PATIO
'ii BUILDING � j
]Ne wHEs' - - COORDINATE DISCONNECTION
AND REMOVAL OEXISTING
SAWCUT EXISTING WALL AS �` 4 OVER HEAD UTILIT ES WITH H
NECESSARY AND REMOVE :2;�jl
FROM HERE TO THE NORTH I ` UTILITY COMPANIES
�i
N
A r ` H � (SIDE OF BUILDING CDJCPFD IN!OL/ACE) C
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF I CONCv�`E __ .c % cOvcRET[Wucir /� Y
PROJECT DISTURBANCE / / I. - % LEDGERT(n.D.T y'✓
AREA=0.157 ACRES 42
I /r/ a �1' ——w mr 5h 10-+a g
REMOVE EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO PROTECT, DO NOT DISTURB I pT Lu/EN aE
EXISTING TREES BE REMOVED. SEE NOTES. 70 REMAIN CONCRETE WALL REMOVE EXISTING WALL
cm DF ndaca[R.a)
asauLT OlAcA FIRE DEPARINEM 5a3�5]+ REMOVE EXISTING -
/ v CONCETE STATION
�/ m®-19-172 BUILDING AND PAVEMENTS
DRIVEWAY rt
t LM ,ITP DEMOLITION NOTES10
: g
PAVEMENTS:
CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN STREET WORK PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF ITHACA PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN
THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
STORM SEWER:
DOCUMENT ALL EXISTING STORM PIPING LOCATED DURING DEMOLITION. REMOVE ALL STORM PIPING AND APPURTENANCES
WITHIN PROPERTY AND TO CURB LINE. CAP ALL PIPES AT PROPERTY LINES OR CURB LINE AS APPLICABLE. ao,
3 W
SANITARY SEWER:
ALL SANITARY SEWER DEMOLITION WORK WITHIN THE STREET CURB LINES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE CITY DPW H 14
(WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT) AND PAID FOR BY OWNER. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED THE CITY DPW WILL CUT AND $
CAP THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL AT THE CURB LINE AND ABANDONED PIPE IN STREET. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE
ALL PIPING, CLEANOUTS, TRAPS AND OTHER APPURTENANCES OUTSIDE THE CURB LINE. - S
—
WATER c RVI E: ` OF MSW x
ALL WATER SYSTEM DEMOLITION WORK WITHIN THE STREET CURB LINE SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE CITY DPW (WATER- •'L.B,j g
& SEWER DEPARTMENT) AND PAID FOR BY OWNER. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED THE CITY WILL DISCONNECT THE I �
EXISTING WATER SERVICE AT THE MAIN. REMOVE THE CORP STOP AND INSTALL A PLUG IN THE MAIN. SERVICE LINE q'
PIPING WITHIN THE CURB LINE SHALL BE ABANDONED PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHALL OUT AND CAP SERVICE PIPING AT
THE CURB LINE AND REMOVE ALL CURB STOPS,VALVES, PIPING AND OTHER APPURTENANCES ON THE SITE.
0
GAS ELECTRIC TELEPHONE AND CATV I DEESSYJ„
UTILITY COMPANIES ARE TO DISCONNECT AND REMOVE OR ABANDON IN PLACE ALL SERVICES TO THE EXISTING
BUILDINGS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OF BUILDING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, REMOVE ALL ABANDONED ON-SITE SEAL8
FACILITIES AS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING CONDUIT, DUCT BANK,WIRING, UTILITY SHEET TITLE
PADS, PIPING AND OTHER APPURTENANCES. PROTECT, DO NOT DISTURB FACILITIES TO REMAIN, CONTRACTOR TO
COORDINATE WORK WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES. _ _ _ SITE 6
DEMOLITION a
PLAN
DATA GRAPHIC SCALE €
0
DATE, JDB No. In
0 10 20 30 9/15/17
SCALE, E17-37
AS SHOWNIn
DRAWN BY: SHEET
TRT
CHECKED: C 1 0 2
FLS3
T.G. MILLER, P.C.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
203 NORTH AURORA STREET
rtfucti NEW YORN 14050
NWW.TCNIUERPCCOM -
607-212-6477
I �
I
I
m
0
MATCH EXISTING.
CONFIRM EXACT LIMITS
OF WORK WITH OWNER
MATCH EXISTING PAVING, LINDEN AVENUE ASSOCMTES(R.O.)
o
5�4-
TOP OF STAIRS AND TWT U fa s o
LAMBROU(R.O.) BOLLARDS ENTRANCE _ Y234 LwoEN AVE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 640/,09
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED eatrxNc If 64-f0-f9 IJD:R
AT PROPERTY CORNER /J1JENT.At YARfS FUN ACE 04.0• (FILLED) 3.4'
• AONO BU0.WNC FACE
a
e • . a • • •e WfLL 4a
I � a •. � °•° � ° � a ° 4 •" ' •• x •, ° • • •� ° A 5140 '. *� Lf°•I
REPLACE EXISTING—
FLUSH
XISTING FLUSH GRANITE CURB ° ° `
v • v e DENOSJOHNNY.LID(R.0.)
2 W
10.0' IMI
64-10 64-,0-9
131.2' 12a IwaEN AVE -
cT•I MIN.
ASPHALT PAVING 4 PROPOSED BUILDING
MATCH EXISTING F[es�,� SIX STORY PLUS BASEMENT
' 32.0' NORTH AND SOUTH FACE OF
EE=100•-3" 32.0
CBE S
TO
LOCATED ON
PROPERTYNES
EE=102'-3" EE=103'-1"
O W
CONCRETE PAVEMENT, ° °� EE=99—4 z
0
TYPICAL
° e ._ .. ..... CONCRETE WAL ..
•• ° SOUTHWEST CORNER OF D cRETE MK
LEDGER(R.D. <
° BUILDING TO BE LOCATED _.. - - -�. 517/242
ON SOUTH PROPERTY, - TM!64-TO-fD a
RESTORE EXISTING 0.24' EAST OF CORNER 1230 I-E.AVE 5
PAVERS AND ASPHALT
PAVEMENT DISTURBED A5P'LdjT eunaNa 1309 cfn a RNAa
FOR STORM SERVICE y 'TN"DA Ex+c DERARTMENT Ss3/6]1
£ DRIVEWAYS A ON Na 9 TN!64-ID-11.2
I h Ly
MATCH EXISTING. 3
CONFIRM EXACT LIMITS SITE LAYOUT NOTES: 0
OF WORK WITH OWNER @
— CONTRACTOR TO 013TAIN STREET PERMIT FROM CITY OF ITHACA PRIOR 9
TO BEGINNING ANY WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY. COMPLY
WITH ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. r
I
>n
r
0
s
S
I A�,o1;uew
10
a66s
— — — — — — — - — — — lesaiD�t�'
I '
SEA 8
SHEET TITLE o
SITE
I LAYOUT
DATA GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN
0
DATE: JOB No.
0 10 20 30 9/15/17 0
scALE: E17-37
AS SHOWNIn
DRAWN SY' SHEET
RT
CHEOKETD, C 10 3
a
FLS ;
T
G
T.G. MILLER, P.C. &
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
201 NDRRI AURORA STREET
TIH l" tow 14850
W/M.1GlNLlERm(:0,A
607-272-5477
� I Wry
I
3
I b
-N-
fW-,ea.e
I I „
I UNOEN AiENOE ASSOgAiFS(R 0.f � G
069544-OOa
7N�64-10-8 p
uN0u(p,01) Iasi LIIAEN AVE
84
BUAdice
DRAINAGE INLET 13177 � GRncETCl 01
W
-4J I ENL BEY. ENT EIE1: I -
EMS 0103.}•
BC/TC 100 8 I OROc - — -- - _ 1 3� 103.3 4
5' WIDE BAND WITH 1 .�) — . . . — 22% . _ . . . . . — -. .
VARYING CROSS-SLOPE, ^'.I �-
i. 102.8 � r
MAXIMUM 1:12 6" FNC .00. 101.6
I 1.5% I tw.a 102.6 _ 102.7 �
103.2
�. IOD.9 100.9
I f ttxovoHNNr,uc OIoJ g
RUNNING SLOPE TO MATCH 9
cors-esus
N/
EXISTING STREET GRADE. �r I v? rasa uvoEN Atf � 10APPROX. 8.5% ,�
s%
STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED BUILDING I a• , e
-�I 100_25 SIX STORY PLUS BASEMENT !�
_ I I I EE-1 DD'-3" 102.2 102.2 103.0 103.0 I - O
W 1 - St St EE=102'-3" EE=10 -1" W <
6" PVC CLEANOUT T 1
STORM PIPE T
^1
-ti I FE BW103.7 BW103.7f J � �y
102.03
C96. 1EGaER(R.O.)
A' SLOPE LANDINGS PERPENDICULAR 1230 LINM AVE g
TO BUILDING AT MAXIMUM 2.0%
A Bmla"s 30J AN w IMIG Ri.o.) FOR 44" MINIMUM DISTANCE,RM- ffi e
RUNG FlRE CERRIExi
a _97'5 nAiIOH Na a TN/Grp T17� TYPICAL ALL ENTRANCES
I 4" STORM SERVICE ROOF LEADER. I
FOUNDATION DRAINS,TO BE CONNECTED
TD BELOW SLAB SUMP PUMP IN
BASEMENT. SUMP TO BE CONNECTED g
TD STORM SERVICE INSIDE BUILDING.
SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES:
- CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN STREET WORK PERMIT FROM CITY OF ITHACA PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY
WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COMPLY WITH ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. Cai
- CROSS-SLOPE ON ALL WALKS TO BE 1.5% IN DIRECTION INDICATED. - - - -
- COORDINATE ELEVATIONS OF PAVEMENTS AT BUILDING ENTRANCES WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OF i
BUILDING. CONFIRM WITH ARCHITECT THAT LANDING DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES COMPLY WITH CURRENT
BUILDING CODE. B N
- o
a
- - - CONFIRM ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN STREET WITH CITY DPW
STREETS AND FACILITIES DIVISION PRIOR TO INSTALLING IMPROVEMENTS. CONNECTION TO EXISTING n
SYSTEM TO BE PERFORMED BY CITY DPW OR UNDER THEIR DIRECT SUPERVISION. of Ocift 1-
I
I RIR-54.5 SEAL
SHEET TITLE
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE
DATA GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN
Q
L 10 20 JO 9/15/17 ma w.
EE17-37
ASSHOWN
DRAWN BY: SHEET
DHECRE
C104"
O
T.G. MILLER, P.C.
ENGINEERS AND SURVENORS
203 NDREN AURORA STREET ti
RRAA NEW YORK 14850
WWWKTWLLERRC.COM u
60]-2)2-6177
0
I
I I I W
I E g
o
x -N-
>i
0
GAS SERVICE AND METER w m
ASSEMBLY BY NYSEG - POTENTIAL RELOCATED i
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITIES. LINDEN AVENUE AssocwEEs(ao.) 1-1
COORDINATE WITH NYSEG. 56904*-ao2 �/ o
TMP'64-10-8
LANBROV(R.O.) J234 LINDEN AVE
640/109 �3+
BUILNND )MAG-f0-19 �, GARAGE I A
DOMESTIC AND FIRE WATER-
SERVICES.
ATER I YJ1J 'l. _
SERVICES. SIZES TO BE ��� rNT.nEN. 41
DETERMINED. CONNECTION TO K4r'6o CM ELEB ELEC.
MAIN AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN r E s RU`XEE -aa' W+NEXC.) — —
CABLE DROP (PULED) L METERS E
CURB LINE BY CITY DPW. FROM euamNc _ -
,T.c. Or
`1� o
•W 7 102 _� ..4 WfLL a
r ~
` ... 2 SHED I TIL R'
POTENTIAL LOCATION TELECOM
SERVICES IN CONDUIT, COORDINATE
WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. G y `
OEMOS ,LLC(R.O.)
2015- yyyp
2015-088]5 Y 1
r W I Y2rOTE32 LWDEN AK YYYY -
�' t� T PROPOSED BUILDING 4 SERVICEAIN CONDUIT,CATION ELECTRIC �1�1
�,�" I COORDINATE WITH NYSEG.
6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE SIX STORY PLUS BASEMENT
LATERAL WITH TRAP AND I EE=100'-3"
CLEANOUT. CONNECTION TO MAINEE=t03'
- O W
AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN I S{ St EE=102'-3° -t
"
CURB LINE BY CITY DPW. z
N �ca.9 Q
O \ EE=99'-4" -- - - - A 1 2
.. -. ... ... .... ..CONCRETE WALLfoL
�'. 5~ eN' • D vW CQVCACTE WALR �'� Q� LCL
LEOD7] ,12 51/242
5 - IIIf
1230 LMDEN AAE
ASPNAti I MLDINO{309
•°' RWCP FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY Of RING(R.O.) _
RIM-9].5 I CONCRETE S+aTp,N Na
IAN-91.7 j ORI1101 TM8 64-f0-11.2
.2 C
UTILITY NOTES; g
FI PrTRIG TL*ff AND GAS
- ELECTRIC• TELECOM AND GAS UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS BY UTILITY COMPANIES. a
- CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE SEQUENCING AND SCHEDULING OF ALL WORK WITH UTILITY COMPANIES FOR - -
I INSTALLATION OF ALL ELECTRIC, TELECOM AND GAS IMPROVEMENTS.
I x
_ WATER AND SANITARY: - -
- CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN PLUMBING PERMIT FROM CITY DPW WATER AND SEWER DIVISION AND PAY ALL
ASSOCIATED FEES. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE SEQUENCING AND SCHEDULING OF ALL WORK WITH CITY 8 %
DPW FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS.
-ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SYSTEMS TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY DPW OR UNDER
THEIR DIRECT SUPERVISION. o
- ALL WATER SYSTEM VALVES ON MAINS IN SERVICE OR CONNECTED TO MAINS IN SERVICE SHALL BE
OPERATED BY CITY DPW OR UNDER THEIR DIRECT SUPERVISION. 5.
- - - NOTIFY CITY DPW A MINIMUM 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING WORK. 1.
- CONFIRM NO CONFLICTS BETWEEN EXISTING UTILITIES AND PROPOSED SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS PRIOR OF NE"y.
TO BEGINNING WORK.
I
.0669b�
4ssioua�
so.M SEAL
RIM-90.5 0
❑ SHEET TITLE
SITE
UTILITY I
PLAN -
DATA GRAPHIC SCALE
a - WTE: JOB NR.
0 14 2D 30 9/1S/17 -
scALE: E17-37
AS SHOWN
DRAWN WY: SHEET
DHEC oRT
C 10 5a
FLS 9
5
T.G. MILLER, P.C. �
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
103 NORTH AUROMI STREET
MINI.NEW•NRK 1na60
M1tl.mwlaRmC W
607-272-15477
I
I
I I �
I o
S
1
I n
?;5ri
— g- I tR10M ANNU6 TES(R.O.)
6o 04-002
,hof C
/ •`I /234 LINDEN nrE
1 UN&PoU(R.O.)
INLET PROTECTION Xu mD rN y&6:;o-,n ( a+w6E I �•�•�
/317 �1
•
I
E
I � ««,ten
H z
OExOS2015- LLC(R.D.?
f015- 9
06675
T � /232 LMOEN AYF � >
--,
St
St , I SILT FENCE OR
SEDIMENT LOG,TYPICAL
----- - _ _
h� STABIUZED ENTRANCE Il,.ii.11 �•}. .. _ 12 42
517
/270 LINDEN AW 0
I 81mOixC//30B
fMACA AM ON..9 IEHT CRY Of MICA(R.Q) m
yl I STAii(IN No.9
I I &
I
3
9
I N
i k
GENERA NOTFSt SEQUE .IN/:' CONSERVATION SEED IAIX MULCH a =
1. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF "BASIC SWPPP" PERMIT TO BE OBTAINED BY 1. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ON DRAINAGE STRUCTURES TO RECEIVE RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED SPRING SEEDINDS MATERIAL: CLEAN STRAW MULCH 5
AREAS OF SITE AND WHERE DIRECTED BY CITY OF ITHACA. a)ANNUAL RYEGRASS:
OWNER FROM CITY OF ITHACA. D.70 LBS/1D00 S.F, APPLICATION RATE: 100 LBS (2-3 BALES)/t00D S.F,
2. MAINTAIN EXISTING PAVEMENTS WITHIN STREET DURING DEMOLITION OF BUILDING AND MASS 2. INSTALL SILT FENCE OR SEDIMENT LOG IF APPLICABLE AT PERIMETER OF SITE AND ON SITE b) SPRING OATS: 2.00 LBS/1000 S.F.
EXCAVATION OF BUILDING FOUNDATION. DOWNGRADE OF AREAS TO BE DISTURBED PRIOR TO BEGINNING EARTHWORK OPERATIONS. C) ANNUAL RYEGRASS: 0.35 LBS/1000 S.F MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED OVER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT 3
3. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND SEDIMENT LOGS IF APPLICABLE AT DOWNGRADE PERIMETER OF SITE PRIOR RELOCATE AND/OR INSTALL NEW AS AREAS OF DISTURBANCE CHANGE. AND SPRING OATS: 1.50 LBS/1000 S.F SEEDING AND SHALL BE ANCHORED USING ONE OF THE
TO BEGINNING SITE DISTURBANCE. RELOCATE AND/OR INSTALL NEW AS NECESSARY AND AS WORK 3• PERFORM SITE AND BUILDING DEMOLITION. UTILIZE EXISTING PAVEMENTS AND/DR INSTALL, FOLLOWING OPTIONS: O4 NfW .
d PERENNIAL RI RYEGRASS: 1.50 LBS 1000 S.F. �`�•-""'-
PROGRESSES. UTILIZE AND MAINTAIN STABILIZED ENTRANCE FOR HAULING OPERATIONS. ) / A. ON SLOPES <3R,DRIVE TRACKED EQUIPMENT ODER MULCH, •r'y.L aKH'.
4. SURFACE RUNOFF FROM UPGRADE AREAS SHALL BE DIVERTED OR OTHERWISE PREVENTED FROM 4. PERFORM MASS EXCAVATION FOR BUILDING AND FOUNDATIONS. INSTALL, UTILIZE AND WITH TREADS RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE CONTOUR. q:., �`_•
LATE SPRING Ac SUMMER SEEDINGS
FLOWING INTO BUILDING EXCAVATION OR THROUGH AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. MAINTAIN STABILIZED ENTRANCE FOR HAULING OPERATIONS. b) ANNUAL RRYE 0.90 LBS/1000 S.F. B. USE A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL DR SQUARE SHOVEL TO CUT
S. INSTALL DIVERSION SWALES OR BERMS UPGRADE OF PROPOSED BUILDING AS POSSIBLE TO MULCH IN SO THAT MULCH IS TUCKED INTO THE SOIL BY 3"
5. RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED AREAS SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED OFF—SITE WITHOUT FIRST PASSING b) ANNUAL RYEGRASS: 0.70 LBS/1000 S.F.
THROUGH A PROPERLY INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICE. PREVENT RUNOFF FROM ENTERING BUILDING EXCAVATION. B. APPLY A TACKIFIER OVER MULCH CONSISTENT WITH PCas3.
6. DEWATER EXCAVATIONS TO SILT BAG OR OTHER PRACTICE AS APPROVED BY CITY OF ITHACA. c) PERENNIAL RYEGRASS: 6.70 LBS/1000 S.F. MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 'j''' '•`EdSt01Tk�' P
6, DISCHARGE FROM ALL DEWATERING OPERATIONS SHALL BE TO A GEOTEXTILE FILTER BAG OR OTHER 7• COMPLETE BUILDING FOUNDATION WALLS AND BACKFILL BUILDING. SUMMER�� t FALL C. APPLY WOOD FIBER MULCH OVER STRAW MULCH AT A RATE OF 400 LBS. PER ACRE. SERE;
DEVICE APPROVED BY CITY OF ITHACA. B. COMPLETE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
7. ALL PRACTICES SHALL BE PERIODICALLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 9. COMPLETE PAVING IMPROVEMENTS. a)ANNUAL RYEGRASS (COMMON) 0,7D LBS/1000 S.F. E
REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM PRACTICES AS NECESSARY. 10.INSTALL LANDSCAPING, TOPSOIL, SEED, AND MULCH. b) WINTER RYE (AROOSTOOK): 2.50 LBS/1000 S,F. D. SECURE MULCH W PUCE WITH BY WOOD STAKES
NETTING,OR SHEET TITLE
B. INSTALL STABILIZED ENTRANCES AT ALL POINTS OF EGRESS FROM UNSTABILIZED AREAS OF SITE. 11.REMOVE ALL REMAINING TEMPORARY PRACTICES UPON FINAL STABILIZATION OF SITE. c) WINTER WHEAT: 2.75 LBS/1000 S.F. WITH PEG AND TWINE SECURED I WOOD STAKES SPACED AT
MAINTAIN ENTRANCE FOR DURATION OF PROJECT. TDP DRESS WITH ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE WHEN d) PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (PENNFINE): 0.70 LBS/1000 S.F. 3' INTERVALS,AND TWINE WOVEN IN A CRISS—CROSS PATTERN. EROSION AND
SURFACE BECOMES PACKED WITH SEDIMENT. PROVIDE TIRE WASH FACILITIES AND/OR PERFORM SEDIMENT `E
STREET CLEANING OPERATIONS IF ENTRANCES ARE INSUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN PAVED AREA AND
STREETS CLEAR OF SEDIMENT OR MATERIAL TRACKING. CONTROL PLAN
9. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN INLET PROTECTION ON DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES IN STREET
WHERE DIRECTED BY CITY OF ITHACA DPW.
10. PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINAL GRADING. DATE: doe
DATA GRAPHIC SCALE
11. APPLY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEED AND MULCH TO DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER i/15/17
CLEARING, scS E17-37
SHOWN
12. DISPOSE OF ALL EXCAVATED SPOILS IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, 0 10 20 30
DRAWN BY: SHEET
AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
CHECKED:
V
01061
STONE PAVEMENT-3"CLEAN, SOIL STABILIZATION FABRIC EXTEND t'MINIMUM ANttDv o3-MAXIMUM
SOUND,DURABLE, PAST EDGE OF GRATE(PYP) CURLEX SEDIMENT LOGS®
FRAGMENTSKNRP-ANGLED
OF ROCK OF UNIFORM QUALITY. iO EXISTING WOOD STAKE OR T
PAVEMENT
INLETGRATE G
REBAR IN PAVEMENT
2"HARDWOOD FENCE POST INLET FILTER SIMILAR
' BLOCKSOM&COMPANY,Y.INLETS
O 8'-0'C.TO C. FILTERS BY INDIAN VALLEYSTAKE TO ONLY
$
INDUSTRIES,INC. ENS TRATE NETTING,
PENETRATE T.G. MILLER, P.C.
P
PROFILE NOT CURLEX®MATERIAL ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
FILTER FABRIC,MIRAFI :•cl"; "� 201 NORM AURORA STREET
100X ENVIROFCl OR NOTES ^VJ,\'y`� D I I 111> NLw�1nRK s0
APPROVED EQUAL, w
EXISTING GROUND jJ` 6o7-2'T)-6fn
20" 1.WHEN 1WO SECTIONS OF FABRIC 75 TYPICAL :,-c•* FL •- o
GRgOE MIN. ADJOIN EACH OTHER OVERLAP BY
6 INCHES AND FOLD, R�1D'MIN
2.PERFORM MAINTENANCE AS NEEDED
AND REMOVE SILT WHEN BULGES ////\
_ DEVELOP IN THE SILT FENCE, ZIP TIE �� \\ 2
7FASR
EXISTING SECURE USING 175,y ZIP
12 MIN PAVEMENT TIES FASTENED TO INLET
6' GRATE(TYP) 16'MINIMUM
DIG 6" 16'
TRENCH, g^�....-� MIN. INLET FILTER
1'-OTAGRATE
STONE PAVEMENT R-10'MIN. GRATE
PLAN MEW GRATE BAR
SILT FENCE 2 STABILIZED ENTRANCE 3 INLET PROTECTION 4 SEDIMENT LOG y
1 NOT TO SCALE NDT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE I NOT TO SCALE
_ REMAINDER OF BACKFILL
F A 1 __ 1. UNDER PAVEMENTS-STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED IN
VERTICAL BEND AS NECESSARY �' MAX.8"LIFTS TO SUBGRADE OF PAVEMENT SECTION r,
i �2- UNDER NWN AND OTHER IMPROVED AREAS- NATIVE FILL w
18"MIN. COMPACTED IN MAX. 12"LIFTS TO SUBGRADE OF TOPSOIL
BACKFILL AS PER BRASS SCREW PLUG
TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL
0'0
FOR NON-FERROUS PIPE SURr RY-4- °
6"MIN. SANITARY-4-D' FOR NON-FERROUS PIPE PROVIDE
O" °0 I I TAPE COPPER TRACER WIRE o
g TO TOP OF PIPE WATER-4b' UNDERGROUND WARNING TAPE 18"
4"C.I. STORM-VARIES BELOW GRADEPVC,HDPE PIPE
r,
DIY ° o - FOR(RANO COPPER TUBING: w
0 0 0 0 Yp?---;xr BEDDING STONE FROM 6" MIN. 12' °
• BELOW TO t2"ABOVE PIPE
-- PROVIDE OFFSET PIPING
NOTES: 6"SDR 35 PVC PIPE 0 O oo EX STING
SANITARY MAIN - FOR F.A.I.(VENT)WHERE BEDDING STONE FROM 6"
6"MIN. 0 INDICATED FF DRAWINGS BELOW TO 12'ABOVE PIPE
-
SUBSTITUTE PRE-GST CONCRETE ECCENTRIC CONE WITH STRAIGHT RISER SECTION O MM. 1/e"PER F7. O
AND COVER FOR FOR MANHOLES LARGER THAN 4'DIAMETER AND FOR MANHOLES ° O IRON BUILDING SEWER r , V
WITH HEIGHT OP OF PRECAST STRUCTURE TO INVERT)LESS THAN 5.5', BEDDING STONE o D LOW FOR PE PIPE AND TUBING PIPE AS SHOWN ON lT E
STRUCTURE SHALL MEET 0R EXCEED HS-2D LOAD CAPACITY. a /�7
m 0 0° CUSHION SAND FROM 6' DRAWINS,AS SPECIFIED
HEAVY DUTY CAST IRON FRAME AND COVER, o co yeo,oLIO �QosR° BELOW TO 12 ABOVE PIPE 'SLE 1
EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS PATTERN N0. 1040 CONNECTION TO E%ISTtNG PIPE SIZE AS NOTED i
WITH"STORM"GST IN COVER. LAIN BY CDY DPA ON PLAN o 0 �o(°�O 12"MIN. 10
10
NDN-SHRINK GROUT AT ALL 6"MIN, DOUBLE HUB RUNNINO °g a °0°°6° BOTH SIDES j_ r, F
JOINTS INSIDE&OUT BETWEEN
COVER,GRADE RINGS&FRAME TRAP S.V.C.I.CIN SOIL IN ROCK
BEDDING STONE 6"MIN' a
RIM ELEVATION AS ADJUST TO GRADE WITH
SHOWN ON DRAWINGS PRECAST CONCRETE GRADE SANITARY LATERAL 6 SANITARY TRAP 7 UTILITY TRENCH B
RINGS
5 NOT M SCALE W
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
<E 24' TAt0.F NG 1 TAAIF ANO
REA
R
CLEAR \ MINIMUM THRUST BLOCK AREAS REOURED AT PIPE HRUST 8LOCK ARLA MOOIFIGTNN ]"
ECCENTRIC CONE(SEE NOTES) —IN PAVEMENT IN LANDSCAPING—� ItTFINGS IN GRAVEL-SILT-GUY MATURE SIL TYPES.• FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SOILS '
\ CAST IRON BOX WITH COVER, PIPE THRUST BUOCK AREA-S.F. SOL TYPE FACTOR
MANHOLE STEPS O 12'D.C. '� EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS DIAMETER- TEE OR KO 45' 22-1/T 11-1/4 NOCK PEAT P
COPOLYMER PDLYPROPnENE \ MATCH GRADE PATTERN N0. 1568 5-1/4'BRUMINOUS COATED GST INCHES PLUG BEND BEND BEND BEND SOFT CLAY 4.00
PLASTIC,STEEL REINFORCED IRON ADJUSTABLE SCREW TYPE 4-6 2 - SAN F
(A.S.T.M.C-476) 7" d° VALVE BOX AND COVER
-GRAVEL
"0•RING RUBBER GASKET s eG 4.5 B 1 2 1 GRAVE
DR BUTYL SEALANT. I /zH 4
GROUP JOINTS INSIDE AND I I SCH 40 PVC GP MECHANICAL JOINT RESILIENT-SEATED 12 6 8 1 1 t OIL OAO
DLR WITH NDN-SHRINK q^ GATE VALVE PER AWWA C509. •SEE TABLE M.2-MULTPIY BY MOOFMAl10N FACTORS FOR DM[R SOL lYPE3. EG
KENNEDY LAVE KS-FW OR
GROUT ONLY IF RISER SECTION(S)AS PAVEMENT p APPROVED EQUAL. UNDISTURBED SOIL PLUG
D-RINGS ARE USED. y� 46 DIAMETER I NECESSARY ?• 3,DOOpsi CONCRETE
°O 0 C CAST-IN-PLACE RING 52 4000 pN CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK b
I o qf'r 12'+I
WITH CLASS00 BLE CCEMENT LININGTILE IRON S PERKAWWA A C11041
PRECAST REINFORCED ° 8 WITH PUSH-ON JOINTS,AND COMPACT
.� CONCRETE(A.S.T.M.C-478) Ri 000° SCH 40 PVC RISER °8° MECHANICAL JOINT FITTINGS PER AWWA C153.
STRUCTURE o°0 0° AMpTER TD SCH 40 PVC �O.O 00; �0O`,o0
BEDDING STONE o0 00° RE7AWER GLANDS
(IVP.)
BENDS
-yWa °0 00 45'BEND 22-1/2,4S TEE ;
MONOLITHIC BASE 010
0°p0 0
INVERT ELEVA71ON AS SHOWN 0 0°0 UNDISTURBED SOIL
ON DRAWINGS,
GROUT PIPE SIZE&MATERIAL 0 0 0° 0 0 45'BEND OR WYE ° 5
OPENING INSIDE AND OUT. e' AS N07ED ON PLAN o o•,g
0O D° O°
AOOD p.CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK 'S
\I\�
°o o°.5 •p.B: '°,'.� ° 8"BEDDING STONE 0 O p IAIN.6"X12"X12"SOLID NGS OJUNTS PER BE CCELENT LINED COMPACT MECHAN"JOINT PER AWWA C151 WITH RUBBER GASKETS FOR
6. D e g080O o°OOO R F°�0 PIPE BEDDING PER TYP— BLOCK ONLPRECAST Y FORM
-RETANER GLANDS TO BE WEDGE ACTION WITH AUTO-TORQUE BOLT6.MEGILUC 1100 OR APPROVED EQLNL
O'V ° ; TRENCH SECTION -FORM CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS WITH PLYWOOD ONLY, LEAVE ALL W BOLTS ACCESSIBLE.
g STORM MANHOLE y CLEANOUT 1 o GATE VALVE 11 WATER FITTINGS
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALLS r
HEAVY DIJtt GST IRON FRAME AND GRATE,EAST
1. JORDAN IRON WORKS PATTERN NO.51ISM2 PAVEMENT GRADE NOTE
0
1. CONCRETE SMALL CONFORM TO NYSODT STANDARD SPECIFICATION S01 AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS SMALL '
" NYSD07 TYPE A GRANITE CURB CONFORM TO WfSDDT STANDARD SPECIFICATION BOB-3.
AWU5T TO GRADE OR SALVAGED GRANITE CURB, 2. PROVIDE TOOLED TRANSVERSE CONTROL JONI 1-1/2 INCH DEEP,AT MAXIMUM 5-FOOT SPACING IN
WITH PRECAST WHERE SALVAGED
GN DRAWINGS. NOTE: LOWER CURB,BED AND BACKING ACCORDANCE WITH MORE PATTERN SHOW ON DRAWINGS OR AS OERCTED BY OWNER,
CONCRETE GRADESHOWN 3. PROVIDE EXPANSIDN JOINTS WITH 1/4-INCH EDGE RADIUS AT BUILDINGS AND AT MAXIMUM 30-FOOT SPACING. ��Or 84..I✓y g
RAGS MORTAR ALL JOINTS. 6"FOR FLUSH CURB WHERE SHOWN EXPANSION JOINT TO INCLUDE 1/2'PTE-MOULDED RES JOINT FILLER,&GIST ROD AND SEALANT. Y A LN
GROUT AROUND C TOOL ALL EXPOSED EDGES AND JOINTS. r� F' n
PIPES AT 5. SALVAGED EX5TNG PAVERS MAY BE REUSED P IN GOOD CONDITION AND APPROVED BY CITY DPW. OBTAIN
OPENINGS, APPROVAL OF CITY DPW OF NEW MATERIAL AND PROVIDE MATERIAL SAMPLE IF REQUESTED PRIOR TO PURCHASE.
INSIDE AND S. CONFIRM EXACT PAVER HEIGHT AND ADJUST SUBBASE DEPTH ACCORDINGLY.
OUT 2'E2'SOLARE PRECAST CONCRETE
STRUCTURE(AS.T.M.C-478), -OG6Ra�•t-
-L' B"z6'lO/10 WELDED WIRE FABRIC o
r EMBEDDED AT MID-DEPTH.SUPPORT 4DOO PSI CONCRETE /• �P,tESSl011
g• WITH METAL CHARS ONLY. i
6'TYR 5"
SEAL
PIPE DA.AS SHOWN
VARIES ON DRAWINGS 16'TYP. ',., ;•. —TACK COAT . --- ,..,. SHEET TITLE
REFER TO / ZZ
DRAWINGS FOR CI
PAVEMENT SECTION AS DA�LS }
PIPE INVERT SHOWN ON DRAWINGS
ELEVATION 12"MIN. " -
4
°a o B•BEDDING STONE CONTINUOUS 3000 Pei ///.Y////J` STABILIZED SUBGRADE EIISTNG BtTIM W REMG/E NND OR PROVIDE DATE 'I°B N°'
.6°'° CONCRETE BACKING ADDITION WRN WS
TYPE 2BBASE o�15�17
NOTE:ADDITIONAL RISER SECTIONS TO HAVE"0"RING EXISTING SUBGRADE MATERIAL AS NECESSARY- RE-COMPACT ALL SCALE: E17-37
RUBBER CASKETS OR BUNT.SEALANT AT JOINTS AREAS PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE,
GROUT JOINTS INSIDE AND OUT WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT ONLY IF O-RINGS DRY CONCRETE BED AS SHOWN
ME USED,BACKFILL WRH STRUCTURAL FILL UNDER PAVEMENTS.
DRAWN BY: SHEET
DRAINAGE INLET 14 GRANITE CURB 15 CONCRETE PAVEMENT
TV
12 13FLS
CHECKED C201
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
PRCNECT DATA:
NEW B STORY NIXED-USE BUILDING K
ZONE: MU2
Li BUILDING
LOT AREA: 4,525 51'
LOT COVERAGE: 41200 SR 93%
BUIIJ}R1G
NUMBER OF STORIES: 6 STORIES
BUILDING HEIGHT: BO FT
SETBACKS: - ------ '-
REAR 10 0' "BRICK PAVED ALLEY f 02 - - ---
-1 1p SiiA�2E0 IN CC111lQN NEW C€1?IC• WALK {}} `Tp `
GROSS AREA
DEED SAYS 8' WCE i _ --
BASEMENT 4,204 SF
FIRST FL. 3,820 SIF
2N D-67H FL. 3,864 SF EACH 15 ' a a I
MEZZ.LEVEL. 1 AW SF EACH x3 SID
CONC'
16EWAL1{
TOTAL 30,T70 SF 1 G'-O"
DCCUPANOY: ` lL5'-4' PROPOSED BUILDING o '(ARD
NO.OF DWELLINGUN[TS 45 Q EXIST. E�=100'-a' SIX STOR`.' PLUS BASM EJT
s
W a
SAVERS EE=102'-3" FIRST FLOOR ELEV: 101'-O" EE=143'--1'
LD AVERAGE GRADE PLMIF- 101'-9"
J
AVERAGE GRADE PLANE CALCULATION: _ 8
A x 39-Y= 3.972'-2' -
$ {1DTA 0'-+1CZ-3'y2 x 1B'-0"= 1,8w-4r --
C {ICLP-7+102'-3'j'2 x T-0' = 715'4r DDHCREiE
D - (102'-3'+10'1'-11')2 x W-cr= 1.83T-4' CONCRETE WALL CONCRETE WALK J
E - {101'.11-+102'-B'p x 39'-0'• 3,98_W-0'
F - {107-8'+104.1'}'2 x 1Er-(r: 1851'-11"
G - {103'-1"+103'-1"y2 x T-0' = 72t'-W
H - {103'-1"+102' Ax 18'-0' �a BUILCING 3G9
J (102'-9"+103'-:ry2x 39'•2'= 4.0 7-6' Z PAVERS z P
CONCRETE ITHACA FIREDEPARTMENT- (103'-2"+10Q"-0 y2 x 32.0'= 3.282-8' 0CD Rf&MY
-0'
L (102' +99'-0"}'2 x 131'4'= 13,199<r D STATION No. 9
M (99'-0'+99-W}1'2 x 2'-V = 264'-0' " ,
N (99'-0'+9B'4'y2 x 5'-0' . 49,5••10`
P - (99'-4'+1 Di'-672 x 26 8°'. 207-8'
0 - (101'.6'+1 DT-W)r2 x 5'4" . 5W-31
R (10T-0'+1 DT-TY2 x 2"-w = 265-4'
TOTAL PERWETER- 4W-4" 41,544'-T'
41.604'-7"r 441'-'-11N'$' 2 SITE PLAN
AVERAGE GRADE PLANE ELEVATIONS101' 103'-2'
t41' A 101'-1G' 1�1'-11' E 102'-$" 102'-9" J
R12'-8",—S' 39'-2' 39' 39.-2"
1'01' 0
18' B fl 18' lap F 11 18,
P 26'-B" G 32' K
f 702'-3" 7 D2'-3" 103'-t' 7�
99'-4'
- 93' N t31'-4-
'i 2'-8 5'
t i D2'
S 9'
SITE PHOTO AVERAGE GRADE PLANE-PLAN
Jagat P. Sharma SITE PLAN, SITE PHOTO,
Architect MIXED-USE
PROJECT &A1�GDATA
312 East Seneca Street MII (ED-USS BUILDING SCALE: NTS
Iff a,New York 1485D 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, New York 1 , 03
Phon9(W?),272-9,Ml DATE, AUGUST 15, 2017
Fax:(6OTr272-0505
REMISED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
l a o f REAR i
YARD
7_19_4" UP
STUDIO STUDIOOF PEN
1 OR 1 OR
220 IF 220 IF 220 IF 220 IF IEH
OPEN
W/D
'I 1
-------
BATH I Wo
a
p
ON
110 rIF
220 SF ----- W/D MEZZANINE
oaSTORAGE jo
200 SF 01
DN
n MEZZANINE MEZZANINE
M
'BATH BATH
1 j 110 SF 110 IF
ON
W/D ;O
�'BATH''I O BATH 1O
STUDIO
220 IF ENO 220 IF
® ® EN
UP
it
G 0 COURTYARD COURTYARD � �0 COURTYARD
I I
uP
•I 4STUDIO OPEN
? 6L 220 IF STAIR 2 1 BR
STAIR 2 2I IF STAIR 2 STAIR 2
BIKE _____�
STORAGE W/D - 220 SF W/o o
280 SFd0 DN
BATH`` BATH` I IAEZZANINE
DN 110 IF
_O ' 0 IF
o
o LIQ 0
TOILET _ HALL ELY. HALL 'I `I ELY.
� ELY . __ __ ELY,
o0
MEZZANINE
FITNESS
220 SF W/D ` -----
CENTER
340 SF STAIR I 1 OR STAIR 1 STAIR 1
STUDIO STAIR 1 220 IF OPEN
UP
TZ
TRASH COURTYARD COURTYARD OI COURTYARD
i� 18,_0.. toe'-7" 18•-0" 'r 1 7L
25'-10" 0oup
1'-0
220 IF 1 OR ® ® PEN
II BATH
u 0
ON
o
BATH i MEZZANINE MEZZANINE
_ 110 IF 110 SF
MECHANICAL, -
UTILITY, N ,� COMMERCIAL SPACE O ��
STORAGE
950 SF $25 SF O C� pp MEZZANINE
170 NI
ON
; ' _____
IF
BAH W/0
T1 /=
ON
00
W/0 o
\ OPEN
VEST
29'-4" 1 OR 1 BA
100'-7" 99'-4" 220 IF 220 IF EN
UP
_ ---------------
-----------------------
32'-0"
-___________
32, 0„ 32'-0" 32'_0" 32._0"
1 BASEMENT PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 3 SECOND&THIRD FLOOR PLAN 4 MEZZANINE PLAN
Jagat P. Sharma Di NO.
Architect TITLE: FLOOR PLANS
MIXED-USE BUILDING SCALE: NTS 2 . 01
312 East Seneca Street 311 Colle e Avenue, Ithaca, New York
Ithaca,New York 14650 g
Phone:(607)-272-9361 DATE: AUGUST 15, 2017
Fax:(607)-272-0505
REVISED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
I I I I I I I
UP
UP q
STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR PEN
.220 SF 220 SF 220 SF 220 SF
OPEN
W/D o o/D^ DNW/p W/DMEZZANINE
110 SF
220 SFoaitMEZZANINE MEZZANINE
110 SF 110 SF
DN_ I
�I BATH�O ��BATH,,,Q
STUDIO BR
220 0 ® ® 220 SF ® ® EN
UP
t 191
COURTYARD COURTYARD COURTYARD
HALE
UP
STUDIO
OPEN
220 SF STAIR 2 220 SF STAIR 2 STAIR 2 STAIR 2
I
W/O 220 SF
ON
\ /V�
BATH` BATH I MEZZANINE
10 SF
O
a QI_ MALL •I ELV. aj ELV.
I
MEZZANINE
BATH
BATH ON 110 SF
220 SF -----
i
1 BR STAIR 1 STAIR 1
STUDIO 220 SF OPEN
UP
COURTYARD COURTYARD of COURTYARD o
I I
�• 18•-0,. t8._0,, h �` 18,_0,. 'r
UP
STUDIO
LEI
® PEN
220 IO BR
® 220 SF
'i BATH��Q j'11/D
1____w/D o W/D oON
BATH BATH MEZZANINE MEZZANINE
_ `.!O'� 110 SF 110 SF
Q QQ Q10 Q ON
220 SF MEZZANINE
BATH 110 SF
W/DIBATH
W/D - 0 W/D 0o
- 0
\ OPEN
1 BR "
q
STUDIO STUDIO 220 SF 220 SF
220 5F 220 SF PEN
UP
32'-0" �, 32'-0'* 32'-0 32-0
1 FOURTH & FIFTH FLOOR PLAN 2 6TH FLOOR PLAN 3 MEZZAINE PLAN 4 ROOF PLAN
Jagat P. Sharma DWG,NO.
Architect TITLE: FLOOR PLANS
MIXED-USE BUILDING r //1 r) 11
312 East SenecaNew
Street 311 College Avenue Ithaca New York SCALE: NTS 2
Ithaca,New York 14850 s , ■
Phone:(607)-272-9361 DATE: AUGUST 15, 2017
Fax:(607)-272-0505
REVISED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
-- — - --- -_ - ELEVATOR It
V-fAl CAP SF✓tJIT BEYOND
_ - FC POND-5 - -C PJ'HELS
'i� _ � - �wJ6NJ11 v�rCUwS
b •i 331�C5
S H
- PRECAST CONCRETE
�- 51y.l
71
' - O I•
4d. ' — 1
. .Mi
2ND
I
o I
I
0
. ?RE:J.ST CONQRETF W 2a6 �1EG45T COMCAEr
J
Q
- - SASS&1JAIYMa-Ju Sf9JJEERONT
o WALL uGmT t hi i a - %oLL u(i/T t
J _ 3
J
O PRE-CAST C00CRETE
I q5T _ - 15_ T ; ERKX RER
—wSLDOOR I
I tO0'-3•
o I PACKS _ Cu_ _-- - I 311 COLLEGE AVE
o FI I --------
r
.BFT' L— -------------------------------------------------------- J �.iBx5E1QIT L-- J
i
NORTH ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION
Jagat P. Sharma
Architect TITLE: NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS
312 EastgorwaSbW MI (ED-USE BUILDING SCALE: NTS
I, aca,Ne,+wYc*14850 311 College venue, Ithaca, I�lew fork 3 . 01
Phunp-(607)-2-e2-J%l DATE: AUGUST 15, 2017 0
F&K:(607)-272-T50
REVISED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
-v_v_U 9 STA2!Akp -_
=,'RT4'i 9C1".'�lSp ELEVATOR R
IEfAL CAP - STW 6ETCP61F
9cc- 503F
=G PAS:_5 1. M FC PANELS
t I
� _ � JA11rl61Y1�id01A6
0
c -
_ B 16
'0 0
1 I
o - o
PAST M P'4E= OD4CRUE
Wa
i o
I � I
?1.0 LLFJ.Ri 1AL'TOCA15
0 0
1
j 2FF] Pfd CAST CONCRETE
LLIU
LLIJ o G TALL Li47iT 1
N
1 EREX PER
0
= - - - - - - _ _ - _- �`
AM 101'-9' -- 1Y �• I AGP- 1or.-9- I
BRIp� `leJ iPoCJ6 I I
T
I I
I
�'$-°ASiDENT L-------------------------------------------------------------- � L
SOUTH ELEVATION 2 EAST ELEVATION
Jagat P. Shauna onvr-lwo.
Architect TITLE: SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS
MIXED-USE BUILDING
312
"Y,,k„ 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, New York SCALE. NTS 3 . 02
Ptxxv:(&Wz72 ' DATE; AUGUST 15. 2017 0
Fac:(Wa -272-0545
REVISED; SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
R R
I
14-4"
ROOF
a
o MEZ. MEZ. MEZ.
I
oo
o
1
o
I
0
o
o MEZ. MEZ. MEZ.
7
n o
EZ. MEZ. MEZ.
WD
Y
0
0
JfRECESSED
AGP: 101'-9"
1ST — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
312 COLLEGE AVE COLLEGE AVENUE
0
I
0
BASEMENT
COURTYARD COURTYARD
BEYOND BEYOND
BUILDING SECTION
DWG.N0,
Jagat P. Sharma
Architect TITLE: BUILDING SECTION
MIXED-USE BUILDING 3 . 03
312 East Seneca Street 311 College Avenue, Ithaca, New York SCALE: NTS
Ithaca,New York 14850 g
Phone:(607)-272-9361
Fax:(607)-272-0505 DATE: AUGUST 15, 2017
REVISED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
g1GK5FlCANS ELEMgNT6-• LIBRARY PRESERVATION BgRVIC.s
------- I-IS T O R I C I T n A C A-------
19GG --- -- -------
September 14, 2017
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, and Planning and Development Board
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street 3rd Floor
Ithaca,NY 14850
RE: 311 College Ave (The Nines)
Dear Lisa and Planning and Development Board members:
Historic Ithaca is in full agreement with the statements made in the memorandum sent to
you from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission dated August 15, 2017,
regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Old No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue. While we recognize that the building is not currently listed as a locally
designated individual landmark, it does meet several of the criteria for individual
designation as a locally significant building. The building has also been identified in the
past as an architecturally and historically significant landmark in several reports,
including"Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research"by Mary
Tomlan and John Schroeder.
The retention and rehabilitation of the Old No. 9 Fire Station is supported by Historic
Ithaca and we encourage the developers of this proposed project to create a sensitive and
suitable addition to the building rather than preparing a design that would require the
wholesale demolition of the existing building.
Sincerely,
r
Sara Johnson
Interim Executive Director
212 Center St. Ithaca,NY HistoricIthaca.org (607) 273-6633
311 College Ave redevelopment
Rob Joyce [rob@redglow.org]
Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:24 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Dear Ms. Nicholas and the Department of Planning,
As a 19 year resident of Ithaca, including a year living at 301 College Avenue, I feel
compelled to comment on the planned redevelopment of 311 College Avenue. I know many people
hold fond memories of The Nines restaurant, as do I, but that is not the purview of the
Planning Department.
What I lament is the loss of what could be called "front porch" or "patio" space in
Collegetown. Many blocks have already been converted to stretches where the six foot
sidewalk immediately abuts a vertical wall of building. For example, the eastern 400 block
of Eddy Street or the sidewalk in front of 301 College Avenue: there is no space for people
to be other than walking down the sidewalk. The overall effect is that where the only
appropriate place to be is inside a building.
Older houses on College Avenue and adjoining streets that have front porches and setbacks
from the road create a more community-oriented space that brings people together. The patio
space at 311 College Avenue in particular, by being open to the public, invited the
community to stop and eat together, and to enjoy the views of West and South Hills. The
loss of this public space, including the shade trees at the front of the lot, will be a
significant detriment to the community. I, and many others, have spent significant time on
that patio space and enjoyed the outdoor atmosphere in Collegetown; the only other venue
with a similar outdoor space is 415 College Avenue (Collegetown Bagels) . The 100 block of
North Aurora Street ("restaurant row") is a good example of where setbacks and outdoor
public space work well and contribute positively to the community. The strong, sidewalk-
abutting verticals of the proposed project at 311 College Avenue are not.
With the demand for high-density housing in Collegetown, I realize that traditional porches,
front patios, and setbacks are not always practical. But I believe that some properties in
Collegetown must have them in order to maintain the neighborhood's unique character and
sense of community — not just for students, but among students, Cornell faculty/staff, and
the greater Ithaca population. And the historic nature of the 311 College Avenue property
makes it the ideal place to preserve these features.
Thank you for all your hard work in making the City of Ithaca a better place,
-Rob
Rob 7oyce
501 Hudson St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
In support of the Nines Bulding
Kevin Dossinger [kevin@zirkadesign.com]
Sent:Friday, September 15, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Lisa Nicholas
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of doing whatever is necessary to save the Nines building. There are two factors
at play here. First, the building itself deserves to be preserved. How is a firehouse from the 1800's not on
the historic register? How did this slip through the cracks at Historic Ithaca? This is exactly the type of
building that should be preserved for future generations. If the Nines business can't be saved, at the very
least this building must be protected. The character of Collegetown is being ripped apart, and once these
building are gone they are gone forever. Collegetown is turning into one giant apartment building. Not to
mention almost all the new buildings are being designed by the same person. If there needs to be more
housing, at least save the building and build over it, instead of demolishing it and rebuilding from
scratch. The Meyers building was saved. Let's think about this a little.
When it comes to the Nines, it's hard to fault the owners for trying to cash in for their retirement. That is
fine, they earned it, except they are forgetting about the community that supported them all these years.
When the owners of Shortstop Deli wanted to retire they sold the business to an employee who kept it
going. They could have sold the land to yet another developer who would put up an apartment building
or garage and made much more money, but they wanted the tradition and legacy of Shortstop to live on.
The Nines owners don't seem to care. I'd like to hear their side of it. It seems like just a cash-out for
them, city and building and history be damned. That doesn't feel right.
I realize the city can't dictate what people do with their businesses, but at the very least it can step in to
help preserve Ithaca's rich architectural history, which is quickly being erased.
Thank You-Kevin Dossinger
405 Cascadilla St.
September 17, 2017
Ms.JoAnn Cornish
DEPT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning& Economic Development, City of Ithaca
108 E. Green St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Via email:jcarnish@cityofithaca.arg
Re: Comments regarding the Proposed 311 College Ave Prosect, "The Nines" - OPPOSE
Dear Ms. Cornish/Planning Board:
It was with dismay that I read about the latest project to strip Collegetown of one of its last iconic
buildings at 311 College Ave,the Nines.Thus, I appreciate the opportunity to submit these opposing
comments regarding the Nines Project which includes the demolition of the Old No. 9 Fire Station, and
the construction of six-story apartment building.
As a longtime former resident of Ithaca, I have seen the development of Collegetown continue its march
over the decades from quaint and traditional upstate New York architecture to ugly, monolithic boxes. I
don't pretend to be an expert in architectural design, historic preservation or traffic impacts-that's your
job—but clearly, losing the Nines and replacing it with this visually poor structure is truly a net loss for
the neighborhood.
As an alternative to denying approval of the project I would strongly recommend the Board require the
developer to include the facade of the Nines or similar to make the new building more palatable for the
community.
Thank you for your attention to this crucial matter and please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Cullen
Newfield, NY
607-564-7172
gtcullen@gmail.com
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Lead Agency Mixed Use Apartments(45 Units)
311 College Ave
Planning&Development Board
September 26,2017
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review,require a Lead Agency be established for conducting Environmental
Review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for a student apartments at 311 College Ave by Jagat Sharma for Todd Fox, and
WHEREAS:the applicant is proposing to construct a six story, 80' high building plus basement. The first floor
will have an approximately 825 SF commercial space and five studio apartments, upper floors will have a
combination of 21 studio and 24 loft apartments for a total of 45 dwelling units. The applicant's intended
market is students. Project development will require the removal/ demolition of the existing structure and all
associated site features. The existing building incorporates the original Number Nine Fire Station and was
identified as a structure worthy of further research in a 2009 study titled Collegetown Historic Resources
Worthy or Detailed Research; Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and
Landscape Features. The project is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District(CAFD) and requires Design
Review, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") §176-4 B.(1)(k) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") § 617.4 (b)(11) and
is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for
the environmental review of the project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
iTH CITY OF ITHACA
O_ 1 108 E. Green St.—Third Floor Ithaca,NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
H raft®flQ1 Z
Division of Planning& Economic Development
Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6565
���PPORATti E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
MEMORANDUM
From: Lisa Nicholas,AICP, Senior Planner
To: Planning & Development Board
Date: September 7, 2017
Subject: 105 Dearborn Ave- Landscape Compliance Method for Parking Area
In accordance with off-street parking requirements in the City Code, parking areas in residential districts
must conform to either the setback compliance method or the landscape compliance method. Most
parking areas conform to the setback compliance method in which no portion of the parking area infringes
upon the required rear or side yard setback and does not exceed 50% of the entire rear or side yard. An
applicant may request that the Board consider the landscape compliance method when a portion of the
parking area is within the rear or side yard setback and/or exceeds 50%of the entire rear or side yard. In
these cases, the Board must consider mitigating factors and has complete discretion concerning the
approval of parking using the landscape compliance method.
The applicant of 105 Dearborn Ave is requesting that the Planning Board review the proposed parking
lot in the rear yard under the provisions of landscape compliance method as shown in the text below. A
zoning review has been completed to confirm that the parking area does not meet the setback
compliance method.
(b) Landscaping compliance method.
[1] A plan for a parking area using the landscaping compliance method shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Board for review.The required building permit shall not be issued
until a plan approved by the Board or the Board's designee (and a certificate of
appropriateness is on file with the Building Department where applicable; see below) is on file
in the Building Department.
[2] The Planning and Development Board may, at its discretion, approve a parking area that covers
more than 50%of any side or rear yard (as calculated after excluding the minimum setback
areas specified for the applicable zoning district, per the District Regulations Chart), if the
Board finds that mitigating factors such as, but not limited to,the following exist:
[a] Natural land forms or tall vegetation provide significant shielding of views toward the
parking area from the street and/or adjacent properties.
[b]The configuration of the parking area protects and preserves existing healthy and mature
vegetation, especially trees over eight-inch DBH (diameter at breast height).
[c] One or more curbed and landscaped planting areas are provided within the parking area.
Any such interior planting area shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with no dimension
being less than eight feet.
[d]The parking area will be substantially shaded by existing woodland or canopy trees, or the
parking area plans call for the planting of trees of a species that, at maturity, will provide
canopy shading.Trees currently or prospectively providing such shade may be located
around the periphery of the parking area or in interior planting areas.Any such interior
planting area accommodating such canopy trees shall be a minimum of 80 square feet with
no dimension being less than eight feet. Such interior planting areas shall be curbed and
have a minimum three-foot-deep excavation prior to planting.
[3] All property owners using the landscaping compliance method must notify surrounding
property owners by placing a notice at the project site in a form prescribed by the Planning
and Development Board.
[4]The Board shall be under no obligation to approve a parking area using the landscaping
compliance method; any such approval is discretionary.
[5] In the event that the proposed parking area is under the jurisdiction of the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission,the proposed plan shall also be submitted to the Commission for its
review.The role of the Commission shall be limited to ruling on the appropriateness of the
plan in relation to any adverse impact on the aesthetic, historical or architectural significance
or value of the landmark or site in question. A building permit shall not be issued for a plan
that has not received a certificate of appropriateness by the Commission, where such a
certificate is required.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review
Lead Agency Senior Housing
105 Dearborn Place
Planning&Development Board
September 26,2017
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review,require a Lead Agency be established for conducting Environmental
Review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for a senior housing project at 105 Dearborn Place by Elizabeth Classen Ambrose and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to construct a two story single family residence with 12 bedrooms to
house up to 16 people on the .446 acre lot. The building will have a footprint of approximately 4,150 SF,
including porches. Site improvements include a porte couchere, a driveway and parking area for nine cars,
three patios, walkways and landscaping plantings. The site is currently vacant. Site development will require
the removal of approximately 25 trees of various sizes. The applicant is proposing to use the Landscape
Compliance method, which requires Planning Board approval for placement of the parking area. The project is
in the R-2a Zoning District and the Cornell Heights Local Historic District and has received a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC),and
WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
("CEQRO") §176-4 (1)(h)(4) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") § 617.4(b)(11) and
is subject to environmental review, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary
responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for
the environmental review of the project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
In Favor:
Against:
Abstain:
Absent:
Vacancies: One
September 13, 2017
Ms. Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Ithaca, Planning Division
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Bridges Family Residence development at 105 Dearborn Place, Ithaca, NY
Dear Ms. Nicholas:
Please find our comments below in regards to the proposed Bridges development project at 105
Dearborn Place. We are an adjacent homeowner at 208 Wait Avenue which is directly behind the 105
Dearborn Place property.
Bridges is an important institution in Ithaca and in Cornell Heights and we generally support the idea of
the project. In an effort to mitigate the impact of the new development on our property, we would
greatly appreciate the Planning Division and Planning Board's careful consideration of the following
issues:
1. Proposed entry drive and parking lot.The proposed entry drive and 9-space parking lot shown in the
site plan are well within the rear and side yard setbacks required by zoning.The parking occupies most
of the 50' rear setback, while it also pushes into the 10' side yard setback against our property line,
leaving approximately 6' of space between the parking and our backyard fence.To seek approval for
these encroachments, we see that the developer will be applying for a waiver under the 325-20F(3)(b)
Landscape Compliance Method. If that is the case, we believe their proposal does not meet the spirit of
the compliance method, as follows (with language of the compliance method in italics):
a) There are no "natural land forms or tall vegetation providing significant shielding of views towards
the parking area".The development proposes to remove 14 existing mature shade trees (currently
shielding views)to create the entry drive and parking lot.
b) The layout of the entry drive and parking does not "protect and preserve existing healthy and
mature vegetation, especially trees over eight-inch DBH". All 14 existing trees that would be
removed for the entry drive and parking lot are eight-inches or more DBH (they range from 8"to 18"
DBH and have +/-40' high canopies.....see photo on page 3).
c) The curbed and landscaped planting areas provided around the parking area do not meet the
requirement that "no dimension (be)less than eight feet".The dimension of the planting area
against our rear property line appears to be approximately 6'wide.
d) As noted above, due to removal of existing mature shade trees, the parking area would not be
"substantially shaded by existing woodland or canopy trees".
2. Landscape screening. Removal of the 14 existing shade trees would substantially open views from our
house into the new development.Though we have an existing 6' high wooden fence as noted in the
developer's application, the fence is open slatted in the upper 3' which allows views into the 105
Dearborn parcel (see photo on page 3). Views of and lighting from the two-story Bridges building would
far exceed the top of our 6' high fence. The 105 Dearborn site plan shows a planting bed and new
evergreens (size unknown) in the 6' space between the parking and our fence, as well as two new shade
trees (size unknown) proposed around the parking lot. Given our concerns in points#1 and#2, we
respectfully request that:
1
a) Every effort be made by the developer to reconfigure the site plan and parking in order to preserve the
14 mature existing trees that range between 8" and 18" DBH.
b) The parking lot be pulled back to create a minimum 10' side yard setback from our property line.
c) This 10' (or more) setback be planted with vertical evergreen shrubs of at least 8' to 12' high with
overlapping branches to create an opaque screen when planted, to replace the screening value of any
mature existing trees that would be removed.
d) A minimum of five additional shade trees of minimum 3" caliper and 15 to 20' high (when planted) be
added around the parking area to replace the value of any mature existing trees that would be
removed.
3. Building and site lighting. No building or site lighting is indicated in the proposed site plan. We
request that any exterior or security lighting on the building and next to parking/pathways not be
designed as high intensity lighting or located on high overhead poles. Lighting should be incorporated
sensitively through low wattage ornamental poles and/or low intensity ground lighting. If possible,
landscape lighting should be placed on a timer so that certain lights can be turned off during the middle
of the night.
4. Car idling. Given the location and design of the parking, it appears that pick-up and drop-off activity
may occur in the back of the building. We request that idling times for automobiles be strictly curtailed
so that automotive pollution does not collect and drift into our backyard.This is especially important to
us given that we have two young children (ages 3 years old and 7 months old)who will be using the
backyard.
S.Trash collection. It appears that the parking court may be designed to accommodate service vehicles
such as trash collection and goods/services delivery to the facility. We request that trash containers be
completely concealed (limiting both visual and smell impacts) and that trash and service vehicles do not
idle at all in the parking lot.
Thank you for consideration of our requests at this time. We look forward to attending the Project
Review Committee meeting on September 19 as well as the Planning and Development Board meeting
on September 26.
Sincerely,
Mitch Glass & Linda Shi
208 Wait Avenue
Ithaca, NY
Cc: B. McCracken, City of Ithaca Planning
G. Leonardi, City of Ithaca Planning
2
View of 1: Wait Avenue - looking towardsthe back of 1 Dearborn
- '�--r:; Propnse� renaoareT of lA mat�rpe e�iistirfg�r4�e$i '':i��-" :
- �� Area aF�ence that is open to _
` -* propas�! parking lot a� _ +�Dearbarn
ITR CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. —Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, � i BUILDING ZONING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�Gy ;3C��F��.'• x4�
�"Q Ell! �" Division of Planning& Economic Development
� ��`
Telephone: Planning & Development–607-274-6550 Community Develo ment
IURA-607-
.c..... 274-6559
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
TO: Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM: Planning & Development Board
DATE: September 27, 2017
SUBJECT: Comments for Zoning Appeal#3081,#3082ఋ
On September 26, 2017 members of the Planning and Development Board discussed the above-listed
Zoning Appeals and agreed to forward the following recommendation:
APPEAL#3081 203-211 ELM STREET
Area Variance
Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column
4, Off-Street Parking and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
proposes to demolish three buildings and construct a 13 unit apartment building at the property located
at 203-211 Elm Street. The project site currently consists of four parcels that will be consolidated to
accommodate the new three story apartment building. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to
install a parking area on the southwest portion of the parcel. The parking area will accommodate 6
parking spaces and a 24' wide two way driveway aisle for safe ingress and egress. The applicant
contends that the historical data for INHS properties suggests that 6 parking spaces will be sufficient for
the project. The ordinance requires one parking space be provided for each of the 13 units within the
apartment building.
In order to construct the parking area, a retaining wall must be constructed in the rear yard due to the
steep grade at the rear portion of the lot. The applicant proposes to install a three tier retaining wall,
consisting of 7' high sections, to make up this supporting structure. The retaining wall will encroach into
the required rear yard by 7.3', leaving 17.7' of the 25' required by the ordinance.
The property at 203-211 Elm Street is located in an R-3a zoning district where the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit may
be issued.
The Board identified no negative long term planning impacts with this appeal and fully supports it
approval. The project has many merits: it replaces the existing aging affordable units with new,
attractive, energy-efficient affordable units, many efforts were taken to minimize or avoid impact to the
Unique Natural Area including limiting the area of disturbance and preserving existing trees, the reduced
number of parking spaces further limits disturbance of the sensitive site; the unavoidable retaining walls
on the site will be heavily planted to make them more attractive and less visible, and finally, the
applicant has demonstrated, based on current parking demand at this site and similar projects, that the
reduced number of spaces meets the needs of the project and its residents.
APPEAL#3082 228 SOUTH GENEVA STREET
Area Variance
Appeal of Neha Khanna and Eric Rosario for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street
Parking, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Column 11,
Front Yard, Column 12, Side Yard and Column 13, Other Side Yard requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to convert an existing first floor porch to a full bathroom and add a
new porch to the property located at 228 S. Geneva Street. Currently, the single family home has only
one bathroom which located on the second floor. The applicant would like to add the second bathroom
for convenient access for visiting family members and for their use as they age in place. The new porch
will be constructed in the character style of the home which is located within the Henry St. John Historic
District. The new 80 square foot porch will increase the existing lot coverage deficiency from 35.6 % to
37.5% lot coverage. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 35% lot coverage by building for the
zone district. The property has existing deficiencies in parking, lot area, lot width, front yard, and both
side yards that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property at 228 South Geneva Street is located in an R-3aa zoning district where the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit may
be issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports it
approval.
APPEAL#3083 105 HUDSON STREET
Area Variance
Appeal of PPM Homes on behalf of the owner Ed Cope,for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column
4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Side Yard requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The property at 105 Hudson Street is classified as a legal non-conforming use in an R-2a zone
with grandfathered rights as a multiple dwelling. On October 1, 2012, the applicant submitted a building
permit for the proposed conversion of a three family dwelling into two apartments. The three family
dwelling contained; 1-3 bedroom unit, 1-2 bedroom unit, and 1-1 bedroom unit for a total occupancy of
8 unrelated individuals residing in the building. The applicant proposed to convert the building into two-
4 bedroom apartments in order to provide private bedrooms for each of the 8 renters. Subsequently,
the building permit was issued on April 30, 2013 for the conversion of the building into two apartments.
At a recent housing inspection, it was discovered that the building conversion increased the total
number of required parking spaces, from 3 spaces for the three units, to 4 spaces for the two-four
bedroom units. The property had an existing deficiency in parking, having 2 on-site parking spaces of the
4 spaces required by the zoning ordinance. Unfortunately, this property is located in an R-2a zone
district where leasing the required parking spaces from neighboring properties is not permitted. The
zoning ordinance requires off-site parking to be located in a zone district in which the use is permitted
by right. Multiple dwellings are not permitted in the R-2a zone district. Not until the housing inspection
was the applicant informed that the conversion would increase the need for more parking.The applicant
is requesting a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to maintain the legal status of the two unit
multiple dwelling. The property has existing front and side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated
by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-2a residential use district in which the property is a grandfathered non-
conforming use. However, Section 325-39 requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports it
approval.
Proposed Local Designation, 411-415 College Ave-The Chacona Block
Board of Planning & Development, Meeting Held September 26, 2017
Moved by , seconded by and unanimously approved
At the regular monthly meeting on August 8, 2017 the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission by
unanimous vote recommended designation of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue as a local
landmark. A map showing the location of the building and a summary of its historic and architectural
significance are attached to this report.
As set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation,
"The Planning Board shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such
designation to the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, projected public improvements, and
any plans for the renewal of the site or area involved."
The following report has been prepared to address these considerations.
1. Relation to the Comprehensive Plan
The 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines "Collegetown Plan"
contains the following recommendations pertaining to historic resources:
5.M. Historically significant resources within the entire Collegetown Planning Area
which merit designation as local historic landmarks, but which currently have no such
protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and
designated by Common Council. Ideally, this process would take place concurrently
with consideration and adoption of the proposed form-based Collegetown zoning
amendments.
5.N. Collegetown's cultural, architectural and natural history should be highlighted and
interpreted for both residents and visitors through such elements as markers, signs or
decorative sidewalk panels, in accordance with a thematically and aesthetically
coordinated program.
6.A. As a resource to be used when applying the new design standards, exemplary
existing Collegetown buildings, both new and historic, should be identified which can
serve as sources of inspiration for designers. Suitable newer buildings might include
401, 407 and 409 College Avenue, and suitable older buildings might include not only
those structures selected for historic designation (see item 5.M. above), but other non-
designated older structures displaying attractive proportions or physical design
elements that could spark ideas suitable for inclusion in projects under design.
The Collegetown Plan states the following with respect to the east side of the 400 block of
College Avenue, which includes the Chacona Block:
The exemplary row of buildings currently defining the east side of College Avenue
between Oak Avenue and Dryden Road is praised in the Collegetown Vision
Statement as being "a striking example of excellence in architectural design within
an existing urban context," and this opinion is broadly shared by the Ithaca
community.
The aesthetic harmony of this facade row is even more striking because two
component structures are roughly a century old while the other three were built
more recently. Each of these buildings has a well-designed facade in its own right,
but here—unlike other areas of Collegetown—the interplay of old and new creates a
unified streetscape whose aesthetic power is much greater than the sum of its
(already attractive)parts.
Numerous design elements visually relate the individual buildings in this row to each
other and to the streetscape as a whole: (1) All five buildings present roughly the
same height when viewed from College Avenue, (2) the four northern most buildings
are linked by a ground floor horizontal "base" of consistent height and red-brick
color, which is then carried up vertically by the red-brick Ciaschi Building at the
Dryden Road corner, (3) the upper-story portion of each of the four northernmost
buildings has a harmonious light earthtone color, and is separated from the other
three (above the linked ground floor "base") by narrow slots which provide a visual
rhythm to the series of facades, (4) the newer buildings, while contemporary in
expression, display deliberate design references to the older buildings, so that
horizontal elements (though varying in detail) are carried across all five buildings at
the some height, basic rhythms of facade organization are found on all five buildings,
and even decorative features of the older buildings are echoed by design elements of
the newer buildings.
The east side of the 400 block of College Avenue is a major urban planning success,
notable not only within its Collegetown context, but within the context of the City as
a whole, and no incentive (such as substantially increasing the maximum permitted
building height) should be enacted that would provide an economic incentive to
demolish any of the buildings, old or new, that together create this exceptional
urban ensemble.
After the adoption of the Collegetown Plan, a Collegetown Survey was completed, titled
"Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy or Detailed Research; Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features", by Mary Tomlan and John
Schroeder, dated June 14, 2009. This study identified structures worthy of further research.
The Larkin Building and the Chacona Block were identified as key elements of an architectural
ensemble on the east side of the 400 block of College Avenue.
Local designation is consistent with the Collegetown Plan and the 2009 Collegetown historic
resources survey.
2. Relation to Zoning Laws
The property is located in the Mixed Use-2 (M-U2) zoning district, the purpose and intent of
which are as follows:
The Mixed Use districts accommodate retail, office, service, hotel, and residential
uses, and in most cases, multiple uses will be combined within the same building. The
purpose is to create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce each other
and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood.
Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts allow the highest density
within the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Redevelopment is anticipated and
encouraged (with the exception of designated local landmarks), and the intent is to
concentrate the majority of additional development within these districts.
Local designation will not affect building uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Building
height in the district is limited to a maximum of 6 stories and 80' and a minimum of 4 stories
and 45'. The existing building is four stories. Local designation may restrict the future addition
of stories. Any proposed exterior alterations or additions would be subject to the area
requirements in the MU-2 Zoning district and would require ILPC review to assess the visual and
historic compatibility.
3. Relation to Projected Public Improvements
Streetscape improvements are planned for the length of College Avenue, including the 400
block, where this property is located. Improvements, which are currently in the planning
process, will likely take place in 2020 and include realignment of the curb line and
improvements to pedestrian and bike amenities. Historic designation would not affect this
proposed work
4. Relation to Plans for Renewal of the Site or the Area
There are no plans in the City's Community Development Block Grant program or by the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency for renewal of this site or the nearby area. Local landmark designation
requires that any private proposal for material change of the exterior of the building or site
undergo review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission before work
commences.