HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-19 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AGENDA – Revised
The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on
OCTOBER 22ND, 2019 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY.
AGENDA ITEM Approx. Start Time
1 Agenda Review 6:00
2 Privilege of the Floor (3-minute maximum per person ― if you will be speaking about a project with a
scheduled PUBLIC HEARING below Ø, you are highly encouraged to speak at that time)
6:05
3 Approval of Minutes: August 27, 2019 6:15
4 Site Plan Review
A Project: Immaculate Conception Redevelopment Project (Mixed-Use Housing) 6:20
Location: 320 W Buffalo Street
Applicant: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Actions: Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
Project Description: The project involves the renovation/conversion of the existing two-story former school
building into a mixed-use building, a new four-story apartment building, (2) three unit townhome buildings, (1)
four-unit townhome building, the renovation/conversion of a single-family home into a two-family home, and
the renovation of the “Catholic Charities” Building. The overall project will contain 79 dwelling units with 130
bedrooms. Total increase in square footage on the site will be 49,389 SF, from 62,358 to 111,747. 9,274 SF of
new and existing space in the former school will be commercial use. Site development will require demolition of
one wing of the existing school building and one single-family home. The project also includes greenspace areas,
48 surface parking spaces and other site amenities. The property is located in the R-2b zoning district; however,
the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This has been determined
to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n),
(B)(6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11) for which the Lead Agency
made a negative declaration no environmental significance on September 24, 2019.
Project materials are available for download from the City website and are updated regularly:
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/1016
B Project: Carpenter Circle Project 6:50
Location: Carpenter Park Road
Applicant: Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC
Actions: Review of FEAF Part 3
Project Description: The project seeks to develop the existing 8.7-acre vacant parcel located adjacent to Route
13 and off of Third Street. The proposal includes a 64,000 SF medical office; two mixed-use buildings, which will
include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 SF, interior parking, 166 market-rate
apartment units, and 4,652 SF of amenity space; and a residential building offering +/-42 residential units for
residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will include public spaces for residents and visitors, bike parking,
transit access for TCAT, open green space, a playground, and access to the Ithaca Community Gardens. The
project includes 349 surface parking spaces and an internal road network with sidewalks and street trees. The
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JoAnn Cornish, Director
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Start Times: Start times are approximate only — APPLICANTS are responsible for being available at whatever time(s) their agenda item(s) is actually discussed.
Pg. 2
Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other scented
personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
project sponsor is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access road off of Route 13. The
property is located in the Market District; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned
Unit Development (PUD). The project will require subdivision to separate each program element. This has been
determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-
4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4(b)(11).
Project materials are available for download from the City website and are updated regularly:
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/1014
C Project: City Harbor 7:20
Location: 101 Pier Road
Applicant: Jessica Edger-Hillman
Actions: Project Presentation Public Hearing
Project Description: The 11.09-acre project site consists of 8.33 acres of privately-owned land and 2.76 acres of
adjacent City-owned parkland and road. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 8.33-acre project site and
make improvements to 2.76 acres of adjacent City land. The project site consists of (3) privately-owned tax
parcels. The building program will be a total of 316,280 SF consisting of (1) 60,000 SF medical office building, (2)
five-story residential structures with a total of 172,980 GSF and 111 housing units, (1) five-story mixed-use
building with 77,800 GFA with 45 housing units, 15,743 SF of ground floor commercial (expected to be a
restaurant), and (1) 5,500 SF Community Building to support golf, boating and other recreational activities
associated with the adjacent City-owned Newman Golf Course. Improvements on City property in Phase 1 of
the plan include the rebuilding of Pier Road to include sidewalks, street trees, a fire engine turnaround, and
additional and reorganized parking. After Phase I, the applicant proposes to realign the end of Pier Road, extend
it to a new clubhouse and add parking. Site improvements on private property to include a 1,570-foot
publically-accessible promenade along Cascadilla Creek, including construction of a new seawall and
replacement of existing docks, waterfront parks, a paddle park, internal circulation streets, bus stops, surface
parking for 400 cars, and landscaping. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (h)(2), (i), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(6)(iii) and (v).
Project materials are available for download from the City website and are updated regularly:
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/783
D Project: Mixed-Use Student Apartments 7:40
Location: 411-415 College Ave
Applicant: Whitham Planning & Design for Student Agencies
Actions: Project Updates & Discussion Review of FEAF Part 2
Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a six-story building with a 7,038 SF footprint, ground
floor retail, and 56 student apartments on floors two through six. The project includes a partially covered
outdoor plaza area on land partially owned by Cornell. Project development will require the removal of the
existing four-story building known as the Chacona Block, as well as the existing outdoor patio and retaining walls.
The parcel is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. This has been
determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-
4(B)(1)(h)(4), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(9).
Project materials are available for download from the City website and are updated regularly:
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/1101
Pg. 3
Out of consideration for the health of other individuals, please try to refrain from using perfume/cologne and other scented
personal care products at City of Ithaca meetings. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
E Apartments & Parking – 215 E State Street (The Commons) – Sketch Plan
8:05
5
Zoning Appeals
x # 3141 – 310 E State St, Sign Variance
x # 3142 – 66 Woodcrest Ave, Area Variance
x # 3143 – 110 N Tioga St, Sign Variance
8:30
6
Old/New Business
x Special Meeting – October 29, 2019
x Board Retreat
8:50
7
Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
B. BPW Liaison
C. Director of Planning & Development
9:00
8 Adjournment 9:20
If you have a disability & would like specific
accommodations to participate,
please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 p.m., no
later than 2 days (not including weekends and holidays)
From: Tim Logue
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:54 PM
To: Lisa Nicholas
Cc: Eric Hathaway; Kent Johnson; John Licitra
Subject: Oct SPR comments
Hi Lisa,
Eric, Kent and I reviewed the packet of materials and have the following comments
411-415 College Ave (comments also sent to project team)
Concerned that ADA ramp at corner will not have adequate landing and for permit will need more detail
on dimensions and elevations. What do you think about relocating the bump-out from the existing
location to this corner? It would allow for a ADA ramp for the east/west crosswalk and could allow for a
couple bike racks.
We appreciate the indoor bike room for residents, although it will be somewhat awkward to get into
through the vestibule. Can a few outdoor racks be provided, perhaps two as noted above and two on
Oak?
We are not wed to the existing pavers. We are fine with asphalt under the parking/loading zone. We are
also fine with no pavers behind the curb. Stamped concrete could be fine, but it won't match anything, so
perhaps just concrete to the back of curb? Open to alternates.
We will need a construction work zone traffic control plan for sidewalks and streets. This will be a very
complicated corner to work on.
We are open to new street lights. If you want to match Brezzano center's fancy lights, ok, open to other
proposals. We do not have a standard street light selected for Collegetown otherwise.
We want to keep the circular intersection, and TCAT does use the turnaround heavily (as do many
vehicles), but are open to a discussion of redesign. We talked a bit about designing it to be a standard
roundabout, which might work, though the bus stop in the circle is awkward, and TCAT has always
wanted a northbound bus stop opposite the CPAC stop. Certainly open to proposals to make it more
pedestrian friendly. Would need to collaborate with Cornell since it seems to be partially their property.
City Harbor
Eric is working on the traffic study and will have comments shortly. The three of us have some concerns
about street/driveway layout & design and parking and think it might be useful to meet with the project
team to review and better understand their intentions.
Emerson subdivision - we discussed this morning with Ari
Carpenter Business Park - Eric continues to review the traffic study and coordinate with NYSDOT
Thanks,
Tim
Tim Logue
ϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖ y͘dKWK&^>ϵϬ͘ϴϯΖϮE&>KKZ y/^d/E'ϭϭϱ͘ϰϰΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ y/^d/E'ZKK&ϭϮϴ͘ϴϬΖ > EZ/< KE'Zz^DKKd, y/^d/E'Z/<&/ Z D Ed/E&/>>WE >;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿKZZh'd D d>^//E';^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<Ϳ&/ Z D EdWE >;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿ$%KZE/ EdZ/D;^tͲϳϬϭϭEdhZ>,K/ Ϳ > EZ/<>EDZ<'Zzs >KhZϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖ y͘dKWK&^>ϵϬ͘ϴϯΖϮE&>KKZ y/^d/E'ϭϭϱ͘ϰϰΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ y/^d/E'ZKK&ϭϮϴ͘ϴϬΖ y/^d/E'Z/<&/ Z D Ed/E&/>>WE >;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿKZZh'd D d>^//E';^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<Ϳ&/ Z D EdWE >;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿKZE/ EdZ/D;^tͲϳϬϭϭEdhZ>,K/ Ϳ&/ Z D EdWE >^;^tͲϳϬϱϱ EhZ/E'ZKE Ϳϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖ y͘dKWK&^>ϵϬ͘ϴϯΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ y/^d/E'ZKK&ϭϮϴ͘ϴϬΖ&/ Z D EdWE >^;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿD d>KZZh'd WE >^;^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<ͿD d>KZZh'd WE >^;^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<Ϳ y/^d/E'Z/< > EZ/< KE'Zz^DKKd,D d>KZZh'd WE >^;^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<Ϳ$% > EZ/<>EDZ<'Zzs >KhZ > EZ/< KE'Zz^DKKd, > EZ/<>EDZ<'Zzs >KhZKZE/ EdZ/D;^tͲϳϬϭϭEdhZ>,K/ Ϳϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖ y͘dKWK&^>ϵϬ͘ϴϯΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ&/ Z D EdWE >^;^tͲϳϬϱϱ EhZ/E'ZKE Ϳ > EZ/<>EDZ<'Zzs >KhZD d>KZZh'd WE >^;^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<Ϳ&/ Z D EdWE >^;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿ > EZ/< KE'Zz^DKKd,><&ZD t/EKt^KZE/ EdZ/D;^tͲϳϬϭϭEdhZ>,K/ Ϳ(DVW0DLQ6WUHHW5RFKHVWHU1<_URFKHVWHU#VZEUFRPWƌŽũĞĐƚηĂƚĞ,Z^hD/^^/KE^ d^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ$%&'ϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭϬͬϭϳͬϮϬϭϵϭϭ͗ϱϰ͗ϭϮD͗ͰhƐĞƌƐͰƌĂŶĚŽŶͰŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐͰϮϬϭϴϬϭϰͲ/E,^Ͳ/DDh>d KE Wd/KEͺďƌĂŶĚŽŶΛƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ͘ƌǀƚϮϬϭ > sd/KE^ϮϬϭϴϬϭϰϯϮϬt͘h&&>K^d͘ϭϬͬϭϳͬϭϵ/E,^/d,͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ^, Dd/ ^/'EϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ% > sd/KEͲ^Khd,ϬΖϭϲΖϴΖ' E Z>^, dEKd ^Ͳ > sd/KE^ϭ ZĞĨĞƌƚŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕/s/^/KEϬϭ͕ĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘Ϯ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĨůŽŽƌƉůĂŶƐ͕ǁŝŶĚŽǁƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂŶĚĚŽŽƌƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞ͘ϯ ^ĞĞƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞƐĨŽƌŚĞĂĚŚĞŝŐŚƚƐͲĐŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚǁŝŶĚŽǁĂŶĚĚŽŽƌƌŽƵŐŚŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĂůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚŽĨŚĞĂĚĐĂƐŝŶŐƐ͘ϰ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƐĂĨĞƚLJŐůĂnjŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕ƉƌŝŽƌƚŽŽƌĚĞƌŝŶŐĚŽŽƌƐŽƌǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͘ϱ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞƋƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ͕ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚLJƉĞŽĨtŝŶĚŽǁKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůĞǀŝĐĞƐ;tKͿǁŝƚŚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ͕ƉƌŝŽƌƚŽŽƌĚĞƌŝŶŐǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͘ϲ ŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚD WĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐ͘hŶůĞƐƐŶŽƚĞĚŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞ͕ĐĞŶƚĞƌůŝŐŚƚĨŝdžƚƵƌĞƐ͕ůŽƵǀĞƌƐĂŶĚƐŝŵŝůĂƌŝƚĞŵƐŽŶĚŽŽƌĂŶĚǁŝŶĚŽǁŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐ͘ŽŶƐƵůƚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƌŽƵŐŚŝŶŐŝŶ͘ϳ &ůŽŽƌĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶϬ͘ϬϬŝƐĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚƚŽĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ&& ŽŶ^ŝƚĞͬŝǀŝůWůĂŶƐ͘ϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ& > sd/KEͲEKZd,ϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ% > sd/KEͲt ^dϭͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗ& > sd/KEͲ ^dZ s/^/KE^ȴ ^Z/Wd/KE d
ϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖϮE&>KKZ y/^d/E'ϭϭϱ͘ϰϰΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ y/^d/E'ZKK&ϭϮϴ͘ϴϬΖ&/ Z D EdWE >^tϲϯϴϭͲE:KhW Z&/ Z D EdWE >^tϳϬϱϱͲ EhZ/E'ZKE KZZh'd D d>WE >^tϲϯϯϱͲ&/Z Z/< > EZ/< KE'ZzͲ^DKKd, > EZ/<>EDZ<'ZzͲs >KhZKZE/ EdZ/D^tϳϬϭϭͲEdhZ>,K/ t/EKt^><&ZD EKW/ ^E>KE/ ^><ϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖϮE&>KKZ y/^d/E'ϭϭϱ͘ϰϰΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ y/^d/E'ZKK&ϭϮϴ͘ϴϬΖ&/ Z D EdWE >^tϲϯϴϭͲE:KhW ZKZZh'd D d>WE >^tϲϯϯϱͲ&/Z Z/< > EZ/< KE'ZzͲ^DKKd, > EZ/<>EDZ<'ZzͲs >KhZKZE/ EdZ/D^tϳϬϭϭͲEdhZ>,K/ t/EKt^><&ZD EKW/ ^E>KE/ ^>< > EZ/< KE'ZzͲ^DKKd, > EZ/<>EDZ<'ZzͲs >KhZ(DVW0DLQ6WUHHW5RFKHVWHU1<_URFKHVWHU#VZEUFRPWƌŽũĞĐƚηĂƚĞ,Z^hD/^^/KE^ d^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ$%&'ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭϬͬϭϳͬϮϬϭϵϭϭ͗ϱϲ͗ϬϲD͗ͰhƐĞƌƐͰƌĂŶĚŽŶͰŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐͰϮϬϭϴϬϭϰͲ/E,^Ͳ/DDh>d KE Wd/KEͺďƌĂŶĚŽŶΛƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ͘ƌǀƚϮϬϮ > sd/KE^Ͳ E>Z' ϮϬϭϴϬϭϰϯϮϬt͘h&&>K^d͘ϭϬͬϭϳͬϭϵ/E,^/d,͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ^, Dd/ ^/'EZ s/^/KE^ȴ ^Z/Wd/KE d ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ% > sd/KEͲ^Khd,Ͳ E>Z' ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ% > sd/KEͲt ^dͲ E>Z'
ϭ^d&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϬϬ͘ϬϬΖ y͘dKWK&^>ϵϬ͘ϴϯΖϯZ&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϮϭ͘ϬϬΖϰd,&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϯϭ͘ϱϬΖZKK&ϭϰϮ͘ϲϬΖϮE&>KKZ^h&>KKZϭϭϬ͘ϱϬΖ&/ Z D EdWE >^;^tͲϳϬϱϱ EhZ/E'ZKE Ϳ > EZ/<>EDZ<'Zzs >KhZD d>KZZh'd WE >^;^tͲϲϯϯϱ&/Z Z/<Ϳ&/ Z D EdWE >^;^tͲϲϯϴϭE:KhW ZͿ > EZ/< KE'Zz^DKKd,><&ZD t/EKt^tKKKZE/ ^tͲϳϬϭϭEdhZ>,K/ (DVW0DLQ6WUHHW5RFKHVWHU1<_URFKHVWHU#VZEUFRPWƌŽũĞĐƚηĂƚĞ,Z^hD/^^/KE^ d^dZ DŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞнůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĚƉĐϭϬϴt͘^ƚĂƚĞ^ƚ͘&ůϮ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EĞǁzŽƌŬϭϰϴϱϬƉŚ͗ϲϬϳ͘Ϯϭϲ͘ϴϴϬϮǁǁǁ͘ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ$%&'ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭϬͬϭϳͬϮϬϭϵϭϭ͗ϱϳ͗ϯϬD͗ͰhƐĞƌƐͰƌĂŶĚŽŶͰŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐͰϮϬϭϴϬϭϰͲ/E,^Ͳ/DDh>d KE Wd/KEͺďƌĂŶĚŽŶΛƐƚƌĞĂŵĐŽůĂď͘ĐŽŵ͘ƌǀƚϮϬϯ > sd/KE^Ͳ E>Z' ϮϬϭϴϬϭϰϯϮϬt͘h&&>K^d͘ϭϬͬϭϳͬϭϵ/E,^/d,͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ^, Dd/ ^/'EZ s/^/KE^ȴ ^Z/Wd/KE d ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ > sd/KEͲ ^dͲ E>Z'
Page 1 of 16
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - Part III
Project Name: Carpenter Park Development Project
Created on October 16, 2019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project seeks to develop the existing 10.8 8.7 acre vacant parcel located adjacent to Route 13 and off of Third
Street. The parcel currently contains 2.1 acres of community gardens an access road (Carpenter Circle Road) and
one storage building to be removed. The proposal includes Building A- a 64,000sf medical office building, Buildings
B & C -two mixed-use buildings which will include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 sf,
interior parking, 166 market-rate apartment units, and 4,652 sf of amenity space and Building D -a residential
building offering +/-42 residential units for residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will include public spaces
for residents and visitors, bike parking, and transit access for TCAT, open green space, a playground and access to
the Ithaca Community Gardens. The project includes 187 internal parking spaces within Buildings B and C and 349
and400 surface parking spaces and an internal road network with sidewalks and street trees. The Project Sponsor
is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access road off of Rte 13. The property is located in the
Market District, however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The project will require subdivision into 4 lots to separate each program element, resulting in Lot 1 measuring
2.086 acres and containing the Building A; Lot 2 measuring 5.758 acres and containing Buildings B & C; Lot 3
measuring 2.12 Acres and containing the community gardens; and Lot 4 measuring .833 acres and containing
Building D.
This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
§176-4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)
§617.4(b)(11).
NOTE: All mitigations referenced in this document have been proposed by and/or agreed to by the applicant.
IMPACT ON LAND
Existing Conditions
The Project Site is currently largely vacant and contains one structure that will be demolished as part of the
project. There is a roadway, Carpenter Circle which is a Cul-De-Sac extending south from Third Street. A large
portion of the site, 3.7 acres is encumbered by overhead utility wires. Additionally, the site contains 2.1 acres of
community gardens on both the east and west side of carpenter circle. The balance of the property is maintained
ground cover.
Proposed Conditions
Project construction is expected to have 3 overlapping phases and last a total of approximately 24 months. The
Project will alter 9.4 acres including the construction of four buildings, surface parking and vehicular access, new
pedestrian paths, outdoor plazas, a reconfiguration of the community gardens and other landscape amenities. As
the site is largely vacant and development will result in a net increase of approximately six acres of impervious
surfaces.
Reference geotech report
Information needed:
The applicant intends to start construction in the Spring of 2020.
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 2 of 16
x Duration of construction
x Depth to groundwater
x Change in impervious cover %
Foundation Construction & Site Preparation
The Project involves the construction of four separate buildings between four and six stories, all with slab on grade
construction, over a Project Site that has generally flat topography and subsurface conditions. Construction will
last approximately 24 months. Site preparation and excavation is expected to a last approximately 18 months.
The Applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Terracon dated July 24, 2018. The
Site will involve 86,805 SF of building footprint for the four buildings.
The foundation system for the four proposed buildings will include rigid inclusions and standard footings and slabs.
Rigid inclusions include drilling a grid system in the existing soils and filling those areas with compacted aggregate.
Once installed, the soil is improved to allow for the construction of a conventional foundation system.
The site has been designed to balance the earthwork and limit the amount of material which would have to be
imported or hauled off site.
The Project also includes installation of a construction field office that will be in operation for the duration of the
Project. Where is this?
Need construction phasing and management plan
Impacts and Mitigations
The following mitigations are proposed by Applicant to minimize potential impacts to land:
x A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) has been prepared in compliance with NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) regulations for stormwater management. The SWPPP will require
the installation of temporary practices to provide erosion and sediment controls during construction as well
as permanent stormwater practices to treat and manage stormwater runoff following completion of the
Project;
x The field office will be restored to its original condition at Project completion; and
x SWPPP inspections will be conducted by a qualified professional a minimum of once per week.
x Portions of the project not actively under construction will be seeded and stabilized.
The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to land
are anticipated.
IMPACT ON GEOLOGIC FEATURES
There are no unique or unusual land forms on the Project Site that will be impacted as part of the Project.
Accordingly, the Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to geologic features is anticipated.
IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER
Existing Conditions
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 3 of 16
The Project Site is located approximately 300-400 feet east of the Cayuga Lake inlet with no direct adjacency.
Runoff from the site enters an existing storm sewer system and drains west under the railroad tracks eventually
discharging to the inlet. Currently, there is no stormwater management on site and the runoff discharges
untreated. There are no surface waters or wetlands on the site.
Proposed Conditions
The Project includes the construction of four buildings, surface parking and vehicular access, new pedestrian
paths, outdoor plazas, reorganization of the community gardens and other landscape amenities and results in a
net increase of six acres of impervious surface.
Stormwater will be collected in a new private stormwater system which is comprised of surface green
infrastructure (GI) practices, underground storage chambers and storm sewers. The GI practices include bio-
retention, dry swales, rain gardens and street trees. The water will continue to discharge at the same point as
existing conditions. Additionally, roof runoff from Building B will be directed to an underground fiberglass cistern
which will serve the community gardens for irrigation.
Potable water will be provided to the site via an existing on site watermain owned and maintained by the City of
Ithaca. The site will not directly draw water from any existing water body.
Impacts and Mitigations
The project incorporates stormwater practices that have been designed to treat the runoff in accordance with the
NYSDEC General Permit requirements for water quality and runoff reduction.
The following mitigations are proposed by the Applicant to minimize potential impacts to water:
x The SWPPP will require the installation of temporary practices to provide erosion and sediment controls
during construction as well as permanent stormwater practices to treat and manage stormwater runoff
following completion of the Project.
x The Applicant is proposing low flow fixtures and other water conservation features to minimize water usage.
x A cistern will be installed to collect runoff and provide irrigation for the community gardens.
x Organic filters, rain gardens and underground stormwater chambers will be installed to treat runoff.
Note: Pervious pavement was considered as a potential mitigation measure; however, due to the soil conditions
which include an impervious shallow clay layer, it was determined that it would not be an appropriate
application.
The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to surface
water are anticipated.
IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER
The project site does not contain high groundwater and will not discharge contaminants into the soils.
Additionally, there will not be any wells or intake to service the project. Accordingly, the Lead Agency has
determined that no significant impact to groundwater is anticipated.
IMPACT ON FLOODING
Existing Conditions
The site is primarily flat and ranges in elevation from approximately 385 to 391. According to FEMA Firm map
3608500001B dated 9/29/1981 Portions of the site fall within Zone B – “Areas between the 100 year and 500 year
floodplain”. The remaining areas of the site are within Zone C “Areas of minimum Flooding.
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 4 of 16
Proposed Conditions
The majority of the site will be constructed on fill or at an elevation higher than the existing grade. Building pad
elevations range from 388 to 390.5 to ensure that all grades are above the 500 year floodplain level. All four of
the proposed buildings will utilize slab on grade construction.
Stormwater management practices are designed to reduce the peak rate of stormwater runoff. During the 100
year storm event, there is a 37.72% reduction in the peak rate of flow.
Impacts and Mitigations
The following mitigations are proposed by the Applicant to minimize potential impacts to flooding:
x Buildings constructed above the 500 year floodplain level.
x Site constructed on fill.
x Slab on grade construction.
x Implementation of stormwater management practices to reduce site discharge rates.
The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to
flooding are anticipated.
IMPACT ON AIR
Existing Conditions
The site is currently vacant and does not include facilities that affect air quality.
Proposed Conditions
The project does not include uses that require air quality controls for safe operation. Construction is expected to
last 24 months, during which time Site preparation activities, including cut / fill for Site preparation, has the
potential to create airborne dust.
Impacts and Mitigations
The amount of construction-generated dust depends on several factors, including soil conditions, moisture
content, amount of time soils are exposed to the wind and sun, weather-related factors, and construction
practices. The Applicant will use dust-control measures, as needed, during construction as described in the
stormwater pollution prevention plan.
The following mitigations are proposed by the Applicant to minimize potential impacts to air:
x Watering truck during dry periods.
x Seeding and stabilization of areas not actively involved in construction.
x Construction of stabilized entrance to limit dirt tracking onto adjacent roadways.
x Keeping roads clear of dust and debris;
x Requiring construction trucks to be covered; and
x Prohibiting burning of debris on site
Based on the information above, the Lead Agency has determined that the Project does not involve activities that
require air quality control permits. With adherence to dust control measures during the construction period, the
Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to air is anticipated.
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 5 of 16
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Existing Conditions
The Project site is 10.7 acres and currently consists of a paved cul-de-sac, and vegetated areas that are maintained
groundcover (mowed grass) and 2.1 acres of active community gardens. The site currently contains X trees ranging
from Xdbh to Xdbh, including a large stand of cottonwoods at the site entrance.
The open space and trees are likely habitat for birds, insects and small mammals. The EAF mapper has identified
the site a potential habitat for the Gray Petaltail dragonfly. The New York Natural Heritage Program identifies the
gray petaltail dragonfly as a species of “special concern,” in the area of the project site, indicating that it is at risk
of becoming threatened. The general habitat of the gray petaltail can be described as hillside seeps and fens in
areas of deciduous forest (Dunkle 2000). According to the New York Natural Heritage Program:
“In New York, all known populations are found at rocky gorges and glens with deciduous or mixed
forests. Small shallow streams flow through the gorges and glens, and these streams are fed by
hillside seepage areas, groundwater fed seepage streamlets or fens. The seepage areas represent
the larval habitat for these populations, while the adults use both the seepage areas and the stream
courses.”
The project site is in a flat area of the city. It does not contain nor is it near the type of habitat described above.
Therefore, it is reasonably concluded development of this site does not impact gray petaltail habitat.
x Need number, size and species of trees on site – (There are 50-60 trees on site)
Proposed Conditions
Site preparation will affect 9.4 acres and will include removal of most areas of lawn and XX trees. Once
construction of the project is complete, a significant amount of landscaping will be installed throughout the
project. The landscaping includes street trees, screening, foundation planting, landscaped stormwater treatment
areas and shade trees in the parking lots.
x Need number, size species and condition of trees to be removed (I counted about 40 on the demo plan)
x Need acreage and percentage of landscaping
x Need proposed landscape plan
Impacts and Mitigations
Project Site development will result in a net reduction of six acres of landscape/pervious surface including the
removal of X trees. 2.1 acres of community garden space will be retained and reorganized. Removal of the
existing trees and landscaping may impact birds, insects and small mammals on the site.
x Describe the proposed landscape plan including # and type of trees
Mitigations:
x Permanent retention of 2.1 acres of community garden
x Introduction of more diverse and varied plant materials
x Number & size of trees to be replaced
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 6 of 16
The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by Applicant, no significant impacts to plants
and animals are anticipated.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions
Approximately 2.1 acres of community gardens are located on the site on both the east and west side of Carpenter
Circle. The gardens are actively used by members of the community and are an asset to the city residents.
Proposed Conditions
The project includes retaining and reorganizing the community gardens to better suit the overall development
parcel. As part of the reorganization process, the community gardens will be improved with new soil, terraced
grading, irrigation and fencing.
Based on the information above, the Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to agricultural
resources is anticipated.
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
According to the Tompkins County Scenic Resource Views, there are no scenic resources located adjacent to or
in vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally, there are no locally identified scenic resources located near the project
site. The site is in a prominent location of the City and is highly visible from the Route 13 Corridor. Additionally,
due to the proximity of the site to the Cayuga Lake outlet, development on the site will be visible from the points
on the flood control channel and Cass Park.
Proposed Conditions
x Describe Buildings & Height
x Describe and reference visualizations
In addition to the visual analysis which provides only basic massing of the buildings, the Applicant has also
provided several renderings of the proposed buildings that include more information about building design and
materials.
Impacts and Mitigations
x Describe points at which the project will be most visible
Impacts to views from the west will be mitigated with the installation of dense vegetation and landscaping along
the western edge of the property.
The Lead Agency has determined that with further development of the building and landscape design, which is
required in conjunction with Site plan review before the Lead Agency, no significant impacts to Aesthetic
Resources are anticipated.
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The site is not located within a historic district, and the existing site is not designated at the local or state level as
an historic resource. The closest designated historic resource is the Lehigh Valley Railroad Station on Inlet Island,
approximately ¼ mile from the site.
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 7 of 16
The EAF Mapper identified this site as being in an archeologically sensitive area. This is likely due to the sites
proximity to the waterfront. The project site is currently vacant and has previously been disturbed for the
installation of powerlines, the construction of Carpenter Circle Road and associated infrastructure and the
development of the community gardens.
as evidenced by Carpenter Circle and the fill soils identified in the Geotechnical Report. Additionally, there are no
structures on the parcel.
Considering the site’s long history of disturbance and filling, it cannot be considered archeologically sensitive,
therefore, Accordingly, the Lead Agency has determined that no significant impact to historic and archaeological
is anticipated.
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
Existing Conditions
The Project Site does not contain public parks or public open spaces. However, the Project Site does contain a
community garden that serves the community. Residents utilizing the community gardens are able to access the
site via the existing Carpenter Circle infrastructure.
Proposed Conditions
The Project proposes to retain, reorganize and improve the community gardens to better utilize the site for the
mixed use development. The acreage of the gardens will remain the same as current conditions and will be
improved with imported soils, terraced grading, irrigation and fencing. Additionally, formalized parallel parking
will be provided along the new internal roadway adjacent to the gardens.
The Lead Agency has determined that because the gardens will be retained and improved, there are no adverse
impacts to Open Space and Recreation as a result of this Project.
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
There are no critical environmental areas located within the City of Ithaca. However, Tompkins County
identifies Unique Natural Areas (“UNAs”) throughout the county, which are part of the landscape that
has outstanding geological and environmental qualities, such as special natural communities, or plants
and animals that are rare or scarce elsewhere in the county or region. A UNA is not a regulatory
designation and does not provide legal protection for an area, but signals that special resources may
exist that require project modification.
The are several UNAs on or near the waterfront including the Biological Field Station (UNA 99), Fuertes
Bird Sanctuary (UNA 100), and The Hog Hole (UNA 98), however the project site is not near or within
any of these UNAs. The closest UNA to the project site is UNA# Octopus Cliffs, which is approximately
1/2 mile from the site and on the west side of the flood control channel. Due to the distance no impact
is anticipated
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
Existing Conditions
The proposed Carpenter Park development is located southwest of the intersection of North Meadow
Street (NYS Routes 13/34) and Third Street in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. The site is
currently vacant as part of the Carpenter Business Park and is accessible via Carpenter Circle.
Surrounding the proposed development is Third Street to the north, North Meadow Street to the east,
commercial development to the south, and railroad tracks to the west. Land uses in the vicinity of the
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 8 of 16
project site include light industrial, commercial, the Ithaca Farmers Market, Ithaca Community Gardens,
and residential.
Several Transportation studies have been submitted by the applicant and are currently on file with the
City including:
- Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Evaluation
- Break In Access Traffic Evaluation
Pedestrian Facilities
The City of Ithaca is noted for high levels of walking for daily transport. In relation to the proposed site,
sidewalks are located at and adjacent the North Meadow/Third Street and North Meadow
Street/Cascadilla Street intersections, as well as throughout the neighborhood to the southeast of the
project site. No sidewalks are located along North Meadow Street between Cascadilla Street and Third
Street due to NYSDOT prohibitions and “Without Access” designations. Pedestrian crosswalks and
countdown signals (only at the signalized intersections) are present at the study intersections.
Bicycle Facilities
The city is expanding its bicycle infrastructure through the use of on-street bicycle lanes, shared lane
markings (sharrows), and a bicycle boulevard plan. There are no dedicated bicycle facilities within the
study area. However, the Cayuga Waterfront Trail is present. Bicycling along NYS Routes 13/34 between
Dey Street and Warren Road is prohibited by law.
Transit Facilities
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) provides transit service to the greater study area. Ridership
is approximately four million trips per year as of 2017 (2017 Annual Report). Route 13 provides service
closest to the project site and operates Monday through Saturday on one-hour headways with stops at
the adjacent Aldis development
Traffic Volume
A historical analysis of traffic indicates that volumes along Route 13 have been relatively consistent from 2006 to
2018. The 2018 ADT was 32,098 and the highest recorded volume was 32,731 in 2007.
Capacity Analysis
A capacity analysis was performed at a number of intersections in the project area as noted in the Technical
reports provided by SRF and Associates. The capacity analysis uses Level of Service (LOS) to gage the functionality
of each intersection.
The following LOS results are noted:
x Most approaches operate at LOS “D” or better during both peak hours. The following
intersections experience one or more movements with LOS “E” or worse: North Meadow
Street/Dey Street & Willow Avenue, North Meadow Street/Third Street, North Fulton
Street/West Buffalo Street, South Fulton Street/West State Street, South Fulton Street &
South Meadow Street/West Clinton Street, Taughannock Boulevard/West Buffalo Street, and
Taughannock Boulevard/West State Street.
x At the intersection of North Meadow Street/Dey Street & Willow Drive, all northbound
movements operate at LOS “E” or worse during the PM peak hour.
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 9 of 16
x At the intersection of North Meadow Street/Third Street, both the northbound and
southbound left movements operate at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour.
x At the intersection of North Fulton Street/West Buffalo Street, the westbound left turn
movement operates at LOS “F” during the AM Peak hour and LOS “E” during the PM peak
hour.
x At the intersection of South Fulton Street/West State Street, the westbound left turn
movement operates at LOS “F” during the AM Peak hour and LOS “E” during the PM peak
hour.
x At the intersection of South Fulton Street & South Meadow Street/West Clinton Street, both
northbound movements operate at LOS “E” during the PM peak hour.
x At the intersection of Taughannock Boulevard/West Buffalo Street, the eastbound left and
thru movements operate at LOS “F” during both peak hours. The westbound left movement
during the PM peak hour operates at LOS “E”.
x At the intersection of Taughannock Boulevard/West State Street, the eastbound left and thru
movements operate at LOS “F” during the PM peak hour.
Proposed Conditions
Access to the project site is proposed via Third Street and a new signalized intersection along North
Meadow Street opposite an extension of Fifth Street. The proposed intersection will require a NYSDOT
Break in Access to provide a new connection to NY Route 13. Two access scenarios were therefore
analyzed in detail in the above referenced studies: 1) sole access via the existing Third Street connection
to North Meadow Street and 2) access via both Third Street as well as the proposed new signalized
roadway connection along North Meadow Street. It is noted that the proposed new signalized
intersection will require a “Break In Access” from NYSDOT. The proposed break in access is addressed
in the Access Modification Justification Report which is on file with the City of Ithaca. The proposed
project will install sidewalks internally and along its frontage between Third Street and Cascadilla Street.
On-site bicycle facilities will be installed and accommodations for transit will be made.
Future Development and Local Growth
Construction of the proposed Carpenter Park Development is anticipated to be completed within three
(3) years. City of Ithaca officials were contacted to discuss projects within the study area that are under
construction or approved. The only project identified is the GreenStar Food Co-op which will be moving
from its current location at 701 W Buffalo Street to a new larger building located at 770 Cascadilla Street.
Traffic related to this development was added to the study area intersections. To account for any
background growth in the area, including any unforeseen developments in the project study area aside
from the previously mentioned project, a 0.5% per year growth rate was applied to existing traffic
volumes at the study area intersections for the 3-year forecast.
Vehicular Traffic Generation
The TIS calculated that the Carpenter Park development is expected to generate approximately 174
entering/120 exiting vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 176 entering/245 exiting
vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 10 of 16
The project site is situated adjacent to one of the area’s most congested corridors. To address this
challenge, the proposed project seeks, first, to reduce overall travel demand through a development
plan that improves connections between the City of Ithaca and the waterfront; is designed for a people-
focused experience versus the typical auto-centric mentality; and a successful TDM plan. The project
proposes improvement projects that enhance the nearby walking and bicycling network, and designs
for on-site transit service. Finally, the proposed project recommends lane modification and roadway
capacity improvements to increase vehicle capacity within the study area.
TDM or Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) initiatives will have a noticeable impact on reducing travel and
parking demands. TDM is the application of strategies and policies to reduce Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV) travel demand, or to redistribute this demand in space or in time. TDM strategies aim to produce
a more efficient use of transportation resources and increase the efficiency of a transportation system.
TDM programs have many potential benefits. They can reduce the total number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by promoting alternatives to driving alone. This in turn can lead to less traffic congestion,
reduce the possibility that system upgrades or new facilities will be required, lower road maintenance
costs, improve air quality, and results in less ozone pollution. Employers of the project will use TDM
programs to reduce overhead costs, enhance productivity, and reduce employee turnover. TDM
programs also improve the use of public transit services, bikeways, and sidewalks by educating users
about their travel options and coordinating trips between users with similar trip patterns.
The project applicant is committed to reducing the project site’s travel and parking demands and will
utilize a combination of the TDM strategies described within. The goal of this plan is to reduce SOV trips
by 15% from baseline mode shares (in this case, nearly 100% SOV as a conservative approach) within
two years of project site occupancy. Future transportation surveys, critical to the success of the TDM
Plan, will ensure compliance and determine if adjustments are needed to maintain, if not exceed, the
15% reduction target.
Vehicular Capacity and Proposed Improvements
Between background and full build conditions, total network delay (in vehicle hours) increases during
both peak hours by approximately 22% during the AM peak hour and 12% during the PM peak hour.
Specifically, the capacity results at North Meadow Street/Third Street result in LOS “F” for most
movements during the PM peak hour under full build conditions. Notable changes include the
westbound Third Street movements (traveling towards the waterfront) and the arterial North Meadow
Street movements, primarily during the PM peak hour. The overall LOS is projected to change from “B”
to “C” during the AM peak hour and from “D” to “F” during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation alternatives were considered, such as optimizing signal coordination and offsets throughout
the network and constructing additional travel/turn lanes (e.g., North Fulton Street/Buffalo Street,
Taughannock Boulevard/Buffalo Street). A review of signal optimization showed that the signals are
currently optimized. Additionally, constructing additional travel/turn lanes at intersections and along
the corridor is not feasible due to right-of-way constraints and the potential adverse impact that
intersection widening would have on the urban fabric and pedestrian experience.
Therefore, recommendations to improve network-level conditions include lane striping changes at
North Fulton Street/Cascadilla Street and South Fulton Street/Seneca Street, as well as purposeful TDM
strategies. The lane striping changes consist of restriping the southbound curbside right-turn only lanes
to provide shared thru/right-turn lanes. Restriping alone is projected to provide a modest benefit during
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 11 of 16
the critical PM peak hour. Some road widening may be required at the Cascadilla Street intersection to
accommodate the recommended change in lane usage.
When applying TDM strategies, the analysis results are further improved during both peak hours.
Between full build conditions and full build conditions with mitigation and TDM strategies, total network
delay (in vehicle hours) decreases during both peak hours by approximately 5% during the AM and PM
peak hours. Between background and full build conditions with mitigation and TDM strategies, total
network delay (in vehicle hours) increases during both peak hours by approximately 16% during the AM
peak hour and 7% during the PM peak hour.
Between full build conditions with mitigation and TDM strategies and West Side Access conditions with
mitigation (same lane striping changes) and TDM strategies, total network delay (in vehicle hours)
decreases during both peak hours by approximately 7% during the AM peak hour and 17% during the
PM peak hour. Between background and West Side Access conditions with mitigation and TDM
strategies, total network delay (in vehicle hours) increases by approximately 7% during the AM peak
hour and decreases by approximately 4% during the PM peak hour.
The results indicate that the additional access point on North Meadow Street and the proposed TDM
strategies both result in overall corridor improvements.
The new intersection is designed to provide an exclusive northbound left turn lane for traffic entering
the new roadway as well as two lanes for traffic exiting onto South Meadow Street. One lane entering
the roadway is sufficient to accommodate the traffic entering without impeding traffic on South
Meadow Street. In addition, the signal warrant analysis indicates that a new three-color traffic signal is
warranted at this intersection.
Additional proposed improvements to improve network-level conditions include lane striping changes
at North Fulton Street/Cascadilla Street and South Fulton Street/Seneca Street. The lane striping
changes consist of restriping the southbound curbside right-turn only lanes to provide shared thru/right-
turn lanes. Restriping alone is projected to provide a modest benefit during the critical PM peak hour.
Site Parking
Because the project is mixed-use in nature, a shared parking analysis was performed. Given the mix of
uses and time-of-day factors for demand for each land use, shared parking synergies will occur. The
applicant presented several site plans throughout the course of the environmental review. In each case,
the number of surface parking spaces was reduced from the previous version.
The total baseline parking demand for the entire project site is 683 spaces, of which 260 spaces is
attributable to the market-rate apartments. After complete utilization of the structured parking, there
is a remaining baseline demand of 500 spaces. Compared to the surface parking supply of 349 spaces,
there is a deficit of 151 spaces. However, the application of shared parking synergies results in a demand
of 396 spaces, which still results in a deficit of 47 spaces. Therefore, it is critical that TDM strategies be
implemented to reduce the travel and parking demands of the project site.
Transit
The applicant has worked closely with TCAT to secure a new transit route through the project site. It is
anticipated that TCAT will enter (or exit) the site from third street and travel south through the
development area. TCAT will then enter the ____ property and Greenstar before exiting (or entering)
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 12 of 16
at Cascadilla Street. The southern connection to adjacent properties is designed to allow transit and
pedestrian access but restrict vehicular access. Bus stops are proposed internal to the site and along
the proposed transit route.
Pedestrian Connectivity
The project proposes a number of pedestrian focused improvements including sidewalks along route
13, connectivity to properties to the north and south, namely Greenstar and the Public Market and an
internal pedestrian grid of sidewalks. The installation of the intersection at Fifth Street will provide a
new pedestrian crossing of Route 13 allowing residents to the south and east to access the properties
to the west and the waterfront trail.
Construction Impacts- need information about deliveries and hauling
Impacts and Mitigations
The Applicant proposes the following improvements, all of which will be formalized before final Site Plan approval,
to mitigate traffic impacts associated with the increase in student and staff population:
1. Construction of a four-way intersection including turn lanes and a pedestrian connection at the project
entrance and Fifth Street.
2. The implementation of a transportation demand management plan.
3. A new TCAT route through the site with on-site bus stops.
4. Lane modifications and striping as outlined in the Traffic Study.
5. Pedestrian and Bike improvements including:
a. New sidewalks along route 13
b. A new pedestrian crossing to route 13
c. Connectivity to GreenStar to the south and the Public Market to the North
d. Bike racks and bike storage on site at each building
e. Internal grid of sidewalks
f. Plazas and patios
IMPACT ON ENERGY
Existing Conditions
The site is currently vacant and therefore its development will result in an overall increase in energy usage.
Proposed Conditions
While the addition of four buildings to this site will result in an increase in energy usage, the buildings will be
designed for energy efficiency as described below.
All four buildings will be participating in a NYSERDA building energy efficiency program which will ensure that the
buildings achieve at least 25% energy savings over a code baseline building. Whole building energy models will be
developed for each building and will be used to evaluate building performance and energy usage. The buildings
will be participating in the following NYSERDA programs:
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 13 of 16
x Building D – Medical Office Building: NYSERDA Commercial New Construction Program
x Building B and C – Mixed-Use Market Rate Apartment Buildings: NYSERDA Multifamily New Construction
Program
x Building A – Affordable Apartment Building: NYSERDA Low Rise Residential New Construction Program
Key aspects of the design to reduce energy usage are as follows:
x Air source heat pumps will be used for heating and cooling at all four buildings. Air source heat pumps are
200% - 300% more efficient than electric resistance heat. Heat pumps selected for the apartments will be
on the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership Cold Climate heat pump list. Utilizing electricity for heating
and cooling is critical to reducing CO2 emissions. As the electric grid is transitioned to cleaner carbon free
technologies, such as solar and wind, the project’s total CO2 emissions will also reduce over time.
x Building envelope components will be designed to prevent heat transfer, reduce overall energy usage and
help limit energy demand during peak times of year.
x LED lighting will be used throughout the project to reduce electric demand and overall electricity usage.
Lights will be carefully selected and placed to achieve a low lighting power density (LPD) while still meeting
the needs of the facilities. Occupancy sensors and lighting controls will be used throughout to further
reduce energy usage.
x All appliances in the apartments will be Energy Star rated and water fixtures will EPA WaterSense labeled.
Gas usage will be limited at the project site. While the final design is not yet complete the goal is to use gas for
process loads only (such as commercial cooking and/or humidification for the medical office building).
The project is currently evaluating the feasibility of onsite solar PV including rooftop solar, ground mounted solar,
and solar carports. There is an existing easement for the power transmission lines which will likely prevent the
ability to install carports above the parking lot to the west of Buildings B and C. The project is also considering
installing solar in an off-site remote location to help offset the usage onsite.
Compliance with the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (proposed for the City of Ithaca) will be achieved as follows:
1. Building D – Medical Office Building: Easy Path with at least 6 points
2. Building B and C – Mixed-Use Market Rate Apartment Buildings: Easy Path with at least 6 points
3. Building A – Affordable Apartment Building: Compliance path not yet finalized but likely Whole-Building
Path
x Needed : Documentation of compliance with Ithaca Energy Code
Impacts and Mitigations
The addition of these four buildings to the project site will result in an increase in energy usage for this location
and the City of Ithaca. However, as described above, many strategies are being taken to reduce onsite energy
usage. In addition, limiting onsite gas usage is critical to reducing CO2 emissions now, and in the future. The
location of, and facilities within, the project site will also help mitigate energy usage by reducing the need for
transportation.
Based on the information above, and with the mitigations proposed by the applicant, the Lead Agency
has determined that, no significant impacts to energy are anticipated as a result of this Project.
IMPACT ON NOISE, ODOR & LIGHT
Existing Conditions
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 14 of 16
The site is currently vacant, other than the community gardens and does not produce and noise, light or odors.
Proposed Conditions
Construction is expected to last approximately two years. During this time noise producing construction activities
will be present from both building construction and the site work proposed for the Project Site.
Mechanical equipment serving the proposed buildings will include energy recovery units, air-handling units, make-
up air handling units, exhaust fans, fan-coil units (interior to the buildings and serving interior spaces) and
emergency generators.
Exterior lighting will include fixtures at parking lots and building entrances as well as Pedestrian-scale fixtures
including light standards and bollards. Project Site lighting will be dark sky compliant LED fixtures that include
cutoffs to focus lighting in needed areas and minimize light spillover onto adjacent areas. The lighting system will
be designed to provide high quality lighting that is glare-free, flexible and easily adjusted for user comfort and
ease of use. The lighting system will be designed including a color temperature of 3500K.
Impacts and Mitigations
Noise
The Applicant is proposing the following noise-control strategies be incorporated into the Project design
as equipment selection and placement decisions are made:
x Selection of packaged air-handling units: sound-producing fans are internal to these units and
shielded from exterior sound receptors by insulated panels that both reduce heat loss/gain and
provide sound attenuation;
x Sound-attenuating enclosures on all emergency generators;
x Scheduling emergency generator testing between 7:30 AM and 9:00 PM;
x Locating rooftop equipment away from the roof edge. Doing so maximizes the shielding of
residents from rooftop generated sound;
Noise resulting from normal construction practices is inevitable and will impact the surrounding area.
There is currently no plan for blasting operations during construction. Construction noise will be
muffled to the extent practical and will not exceed levels allowed by law.
In accordance with local noise ordinances construction activities that result in exterior noise will be
limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM M-F and Saturday 7 AM to 5 PM.
Light
The Applicant is proposing Dark-Sky compliant LED light fixtures for all exterior lighting.
The Lead Agency has determined that with the mitigations proposed by the Applicant as well as further
refinement of lighting design during Site Plan review, no significant impacts to noise, odors or light are
anticipated as a result of this Project.
IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH
The Project Site has no known history of potential contamination. Therefore, construction activities are
not anticipated to involve the handling or transport of any hazardous materials.
Residential and commercial operations will not involve the generation, storage, handling or disposal of
hazardous materials and will not store quantities of natural gas or other flammable liquids.
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 15 of 16
Medical facility operations will involve the production of medical waste, the handling and disposal of
which will be in compliance with all State and Federal Laws regulating medical waste.
Solid waste will be stored in on-site dumpster enclosures with regularly scheduled pick up.
The Lead Agency has determined that, based on the information above, no significant impacts to human
health are anticipated as a result of this Project.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLANS
The development will also advance many of the general goals set forth in Plan Ithaca including
x Dense mixed use development serving a variety of income levels
x Extension and improvements to the public transportation system
x Extension and connectivity of sidewalks to enhance the public experience
x Development of and investment in the waterfront
x Increased transportation choices
x Development of Energy efficient minimal fossil fuel buildings
x Reduction of Parking and reduced impervious surfaces
x Attractive landscaping and Green Infrastructure
The project site is in the Market District within the Waterfront Plan Area. The final draft of the Plan,
which is slated for adoption in late 2019, identifies the following characteristics for the Market District:
x Encourage Mixed-Use Development — Future development should include a mix of development
types and uses, including commercial and residential uses.
x Support Established Uses — Future development should enhance/protect the existing uses,
including retaining a space for the Ithaca Farmers Market and rowing and boating users.
x Encourage Synergistic Uses — This area could benefit by incorporating synergistic uses into
planned projects, such as food production and community kitchens, which could enhance the
Ithaca Farmers Market.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) from Common Council. The proposed
PUD has 3 subzones:
1. CCPUD-A-This sub area is intended to be predominantly used for community gardens and may
contain small structures and parking areas that support the gardens. The subarea has a
maximum building height of 2 stories and 30’
2. CCPUD-B-This is a residential sub area with a maximum building height of 4 stories and 60’
3. CCPUD-C-This sub area is a mixed used district allowing for medical office, residential and small
scale commercial uses with a maximum building height of 6 stories and 80’
x Insert description of PUD Uses and other area requirements
x Insert analysis of how the project and PUD is consistent with Community Plans for the Area.
The project also proposes transportation improvements that further overall City goals for the area and
have significant benefits outside of the project boundaries. Carpenter Park will extend the urban fabric
of downtown Ithaca through the implementation of a street grid system, pedestrian connectivity, a new
Last updated: Thursday, October 17, 2019
Page 16 of 16
traffic signal and improvements to the pedestrian network. The internal north-south road will provide
pedestrian bike and TCAT access to Cascadilla Street, changes to Route 13 that will improve traffic flow,
pedestrian and bike access and extend the urban grid into the waterfront area.
Based on the information above, the Lead Agency has found the project to be consistent with
community plans and goals.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER
As described extensively above, the project site is primarily vacant with established community
gardens. In the 90’s the City installed a road (Carpenter Circle) with granite curbs, drainage and
sidewalks to encourage private development on the site. However, due to a combination of factors, a
desirable development project was not, until this time, proposed for the site.
The project integrates several features that enhance community character. Including the following:
1. Retention and improvement of the Community Gardens assures continued access to a facility
that is important to the community
2. The proposed project adds approximately 42 units of affordable housing in the emerging
waterfront area.
3. There is no predominate architectural scale and character in the area but the project is
consistent with the planned characteristics of the area. The project introduces residential and
mixed use development on a long vacant site in a prime location with high visibility and
proximity to goods, services and multimodal transportation.
4. Verify capacity analysis (utilities)
5. The project will create new demand for City services, however this demand will be offset by
the significant increase in tax revenue resulting from the project.
411-415 College Avenue
Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 142 East State Street, Rear Ithaca, NY 14850
October 16, 2019
Lisa Nicholas
Division of Planning and Economic Development, City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street, 3rd Floor
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Re: 411-415 College Avenue Site Plan Review – October Planning Board Updates
Dear Lisa:
On behalf of the project team, attached please find updates Site Plan Review materials for the 411-415 College Avenue
project to supplement previously submitted materials, and as a response to discussions with the Board to date.
These updates are summarized as follows, and can be described further during the October Planning Board meeting.
Plaza Design Updates
Seating and planting material updates.
Architectural Design Updates
West Façade (College Avenue)
oMaterial changes
Change from blonde brick to red terra cotta brick on façade at floors 1-4. This contributes to
differentiation between this building and the neighboring 409 College Avenue building, as
discussed during the September Planning Board meeting.
Increased the height of the 4th Floor cornice to break up the roof line. This is similar to
how the other roof lines on the block are treated.
Utilize a grey brick at the 5th and 6th floor to reduce the total number of materials present
in the design.
Simplified the windows on the 5th and 6th floors
Enlarged the cornice line between the 1st and 2nd floors to recall this element from the
existing building
Indicate proposed locations for the Lion heads retained from the existing building
North Façade (Oak Ave)
Utilize a grey brick at the 5th and 6th floor and at the loading area to reduce the total
number of materials present in the design.
Simplified the windows on the 5th and 6th floors
Architectural Renderings shown during the September Planning Board meeting are included in this submission,
as well.
We look forward to continuing the public review process on what we feel is an exciting proposal.
Sincerely,
Kate Chesebrough
Senior Designer, Whitham Planning & Design
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 2Plaza Materials UpdateN
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 3College Avenue Elevation Comparison(/(9$7,21',$*5$066WURQJWULSDUWLWHRUJDQL]DWLRQDFURVV&ROOHJH$YH6WURQJVWRU\GDWXPVBrickBrickGray MasonryBlue ReflectiveGlassGraniteSeptember 2019 Planning Board MeetingOctober 2019 Planning Board Meeting
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 4College Avenue Elevation
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 56WURQJWULSDUWLWHRUJDQL]DWLRQDFURVV&ROOHJH$YH6WURQJVWRU\GDWXPVGray MasonryGraniteBlue ReflectiveGlassBluestoneSeptember 2019 Planning Board MeetingOctober 2019 Planning Board MeetingOak Avenue Elevation Comparison
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 6Oak Avenue Elevation
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 7Street Level Perspective
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 8Aerial Perspective
411-415 College AvenuePlanning Board UpdatesOctober 22, 2019 9Aerial Perspective - Plaza Zoom In
Page 1 of 10
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could
be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental
professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that
can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the
most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the
lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity.
If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
Tips for completing Part 2:
x Review all of the information provided in Part 1.
x Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook.
x Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2.
x If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section.
x If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question.
x Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact.
x Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency
checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.”
x The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis.
x If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general
question and consult the workbook.
x When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@.
x Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts.
x Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project.
1. Impact on Land
Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO YES
the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is
less than 3 feet.E2d
b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater.
E2f
c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or
generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface.
E2a
d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons
of natural material.
D2a
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year
or in multiple phases.
D1e
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical
disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides).
D2e, D2q
g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.
B1i
h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
"HFODZ6TF0OMZ<*GBQQMJDBCMF>
1SPKFDU
%BUF
FEAF2019
411- 415 College Ave
9-30-19
✔
Page 2 of 10
2. Impact on Geological Features
The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit
access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, NO YES
minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
E2g
b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a
registered National Natural Landmark.
Specific feature: _____________________________________________________
E3c
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3. Impacts on Surface Water
The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water NO YES
bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may create a new water body.
D2b, D1h
b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water.
D2b
c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material
from a wetland or water body.
D2a
d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or
tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
E2h
e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion,
runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments.
D2a, D2h
f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal
of water from surface water.
D2c
g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge
of wastewater to surface water(s).
D2d
h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of
stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving
water bodies.
D2e
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or
downstream of the site of the proposed action.
E2h
j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or
around any water body.
D2q, E2h
k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing,
wastewater treatment facilities.
D1a, D2d
✔
✔
Page 3 of 10
l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
4. Impact on groundwater
The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or NO YES
may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
(See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand
on supplies from existing water supply wells.
D2c
b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable
withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer.
Cite Source: ________________________________________________________
D2c
c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and
sewer services.
D1a, D2c
d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.
D2d, E2l
e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations
where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated.
D2c, E1f,
E1g, E1h
f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products
over ground water or an aquifer.
D2p, E2l
g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100
feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
E2h, D2q,
E2l, D2c
h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. Impact on Flooding
The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. NO YES
(See Part 1. E.2)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.
E2i
b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.
E2j
c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.
E2k
d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage
patterns.
D2b, D2e
e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.
D2b, E2i,
E2j, E2k
f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, LVWKH dam LQQHHGRIUHSDLU
RUXSJUDGH"
E1e
✔
✔
Page 4 of 10
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
6. Impacts on Air
NO YES The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.
(See Part 1. D.2.f., D2hD.2.g)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may
also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels:
i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2)
ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N22)
iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of
hydrochloroflRurocarbons (HFCs) emissions
vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2h
b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated
hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous
air pollutants.
D2g
c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions
rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat
source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour.
D2f, D2g
d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a”through “c”,
above.
DJ
e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1
ton of refuse per hour.
D2s
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
7.Impact on Plants and Animals
The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) NO YES
If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any
threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal
government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2o
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal
government.
E2o
c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any
species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the
Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2p
d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or
the Federal government.
E2p
✔
✔Construction impacts only
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 5 of 10
e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural
Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect.
E3c
f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any
portion of a designated significant natural community.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E2n
g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or
over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.E2m
h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,
grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat.
Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
E1b
i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of
herbicides or pesticides.
D2q
j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
8. Impact on Agricultural Resources
The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) NO YES
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System.
E2c, E3b
b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
E1a, Elb
c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of
active agricultural land.
E3b
d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10
acres if not within an Agricultural District.
E1b, E3a
e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land
management system.
El a, E1b
f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development
potential or pressure on farmland.
C2c, C3,
D2c, D2d
g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland
Protection Plan.
C2c
h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔Potential impact on birds due to a large expanse of glass close to habitat
( Cascadilla Gorge)
✔
Page 6 of 10
9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in NO YES
sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and
a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource.
E3h
b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant
screening of one or more officially designated scenic views.
E3h, C2b
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:
i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons)
ii. Year round
E3h
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed
action is:
i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work
ii. Recreational or tourism based activities
E3h
E2q,
E1c
e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and
appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource.
E3h
f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed
project:
0-1/2 mile
½ -3 mile
3-5 mile
5+ mile
D1a, E1a,
D1f, D1g
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological NO YES
resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
E3e
b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory.
E3f
c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E3g
D 7KHSURSRVHGDFWLRQPD\RFFXUZKROO\RUSDUWLDOO\ZLWKLQRUVXEVWDQWLDOO\FRQWLJXRXV
WRDQ\EXLOGLQJVDUFKDHRORJLFDOVLWHRUGLVWULFWZKLFKLVOLVWHGRQWKH1DWLRQDORU
6WDWH5HJLVWHURI+LVWRULFDO3ODFHVRUWKDWKDVEHHQGHWHUPLQHGE\WKH&RPPLVVLRQHU
RIWKH1<62IILFHRI3DUNV5HFUHDWLRQDQG+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQWREHHOLJLEOHIRU
OLVWLQJRQWKH6WDWH5HJLVWHURI+LVWRULF3ODFHV
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔Impact to the urban aesthetics of 400 block of College Ave
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 7 of 10
d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
e.If any of the above (a-d) are answered “0RGHUDWHWRODUJHLPSDFWPD\
RFFXU”, continue with the following questionsto help support conclusions in Part 3:
i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part
of the site or property.
ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or
integrity.
iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which
are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
E3e, E3g,
E3f
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E1a,
E1b
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E3h,
C2, C3
11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation
The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a NO YES
reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted
municipal open space plan.
(See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem
services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater
storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat.
D2e, E1b
E2h,
E2m, E2o,
E2n, E2p
b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.
C2a, E1c,
C2c, E2q
c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area
with few such resources.
C2a, C2c
E1c, E2q
d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the
community as an open space resource.
C2c, E1c
e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO YES
environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ Project will be visible to users of Cascadilla Gorge
✔
✔Project site is adjacent to Cascadilla Gorge (UNA 136: Cascadilla Gorge)
Page 8 of 10
13. Impact on Transportation
The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.j)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - I. If “No”, go to Section 14.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.
D2j
b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or
more vehicles.
D2j
c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.
D2j
d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.
D2j
H.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j
I. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14. Impact on Energy
The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.k)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. D2k
b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission
or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a
commercial or industrial use.
D1f,
D1q, D2k
c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.
D2k
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square
feet of building area when completed.
D1g
e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light
The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local
regulation.
D2m
b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,
hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home.
D2m, E1d
c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. D2o
✔
Construction impacts)
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 9 of 10
d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.
D2n
e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing
area conditions.
D2n, E1a
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
16. Impact on Human Health
The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure NO YES
to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may cccur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day
care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community.
E1d
b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.
E1g, E1h
c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site
remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action.
E1g, E1h
d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the
property (e.g.easementRUdeed restriction)
E1g, E1h
e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place
to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health.
E1g, E1h
f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future
generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the
environment and human health.
D2t
g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste
management facility.
D2q, E1f
h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.
D2q, E1f
i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of
solid waste.
D2r, D2s
j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of
a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
E1f, E1g
E1h
k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill
site to adjacent off site structures.
E1f, E1g
l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the
project site.
D2s, E1f,
D2r
m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔Temporary Construction impacts
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Need Phase 1 ESA
Page 10 of 10
17. Consistency with Community Plans
The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. NO YES
(See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp
contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s).
C2, C3, D1a
E1a, E1b
b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village
in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%.
C2
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3
d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use
plans.
C2, C2
e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not
supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.
C3, D1c,
D1d, D1f,
D1d, Elb
f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development
that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.
C4, D2c, D2d
D2j
g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or
commercial development not included in the proposed action)
C2a
h. Other: _____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18. Consistency with Community Character
The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. NO YES
(See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas
of historic importance to the community.
E3e, E3f, E3g
b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.
schools, police and fire)
C4
c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where
there is a shortage of such housing.
C2, C3, D1f
D1g, E1a
d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized
or designated public resources.
C2, E3
e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character.
C2, C3
f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3
E1a, E1b
E2g, E2h
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
PRINT FULL FORM
From: Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
To: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director, Planning and Development,
Members of the Planning and Development Board
Date: October 16, 2019
Subject: Advisory Review - Redevelopment Proposal for 411-415 College Avenue
At the regular Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) meeting on October 10, 2019, the
Commission reviewed the redevelopment proposal for the 411-415 College Avenue site currently being
considered by the Planning and Development Board. The purpose this memo is to provide background
information on the site, and summarize the Commission’s advisory feedback on the design of the
proposed new building, and mitigations for the loss of this significant historic resource.
As part of the Collegetown planning process and the development of the Collegetown Urban Plan and
Conceptual Design Guidelines (Collegetown Plan) in 2009, a reconnaissance-level historic resource
survey of the area was conducted by former Alderperson Mary Tomlan and Planning and Development
Board Chair John Schroeder. The resulting survey, known as Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of
Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape
Features, identified approximately 30 properties within the study area that possessed some architectural
and/or historical value. Based on this document and recommendations in the Collegetown Urban Plan &
Conceptual Design Guidelines, the ILPC conducted an intensive-level survey of twelve of the identified
properties that appeared to meet the eligibility requirements for local designation in 2012. 411-415 College
Avenue, historically known as the Chacona Block, was one of the properties selected to be studied as part of
this survey.
In August 2017, the ILPC used the information gathered as part of the intensive-level survey to
recommend the designation of the Chacona Block as an individual local landmark, noting the resource
met all five criteria outlined in the Landmarks Ordinance (Section 228 of the Municipal Code). The
ILPC’s resolution summarizing the architectural, historical and cultural value of the resource is attached
for reference purposes only. The proposed designation was reviewed by the Planning and Development
Board as required by the Landmarks Ordinance in September 2017, and the Board found the proposal was
supported by the Collegetown Plan and the City’s comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca, and recommended
Common Council approval of the designation. It was then reviewed by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee in October 2017 and the group voted to move the proposal on to Common
Council with the recommendation to disapprove the designation. In November 2017, Common Council
voted to deny the local landmark designation of 411-415 College Avenue.
As part of the designation review process, the New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form (copy
attached) prepared for the Chacona Block was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
for an initial determination of eligibility for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
SHPO found the building is eligible for listing based on its “associate[ion] with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history,” and “embodi[ment] of the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possess
high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose component may lack
individual distinction.” This determination is the State’s recognition of the building’s historic and
architectural value. It is also important to note that the Chacona Block is one of only two buildings on
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/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
College Avenue determined to be eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places; the other is the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue.
_________________
As requested by the Planning and Development Board, the ILPC reviewed the design for the proposed
new building at 411-415College Avenue and discussed potential mitigations for the loss of the historic
resource. The Commission advisory comments are noted below.
After reviewing the project narrative prepared by Whitham Planning and Design and dated 9/3/19, and
drawings dated 9/3/19 an prepared by HOLT Architects, the ILPC gave the following feedback on the
design for the new building:
x The 5’ stepback of the fifth and sixth stories does not adequately reduce the perceived size, scale,
and massing of the upper stories. The stepback of these stories should be at least 15’;
x A meaningful break between the façades of 409 and 411-415 College Avenue is needed to
maintain the architectural rhythm of this urban block;
x The number of exterior cladding materials should be reduced to add design and material
cohesivity to the west and north elevations as well as the lower and upper stories;
x More articulation is needed on the first story to establish a pedestrian-scaled street level;
x Architectural elements are needed on the north elevation to ground the upper stories of the
building. When viewed from the north, the fifth and sixth stories appear to be floating above the
glazed lower stories;
x More articulation is needed on the fifth and sixth stories to give the building a finished
appearance.
The ILPC also reviewed the proposed mitigations outlined in the Memorandum of Commitment (MOC)
prepared by Student Agencies in 2017 (attached). After careful consideration of the MOC, the
Commission recommends the following additional actions to adequately mitigate the loss of the historic
resource:
x Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-level recordation of 411 and 413-15 College Avenue
by a historic preservation professional specializing in the documentation historic buildings.
Documentation should meet the standards outlined in the National Park Services’ HABS
Guidelines and include a history, photographs and drawings of the building;
x Architectural and construction material salvage by qualified local organizations, including
Historic Ithaca and Ithaca ReUse;
x Physical representation of the history of the site on the new building, including the incorporation
of salvaged (historic lions head and Greek cross medallions) and new elements in the building
design and the installation of interpretative signage. The ILPC suggests installing the historic
medallions and interpretative signage in a protected, publically accessible area on the north
elevation. It also suggests installing contemporary interpretations of the historic medallions on the
College Avenue façade, reflecting the original placements of these iconic features;
x Binding peer design review to ensure the highest quality architecture for this significant and
iconic site. The Commission recommends a peer design review committee consisting of
members of the Planning and Development Board, ILPC, preservation community, and the
general public.
ILPC Meeting – 08/08/17
Resolution – RA-3
RE: Local Landmark Designation of the Chacona Block, 411-415 College Avenue
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission (ILPC) may recommend to Common Council the designation landmarks
and districts of historic and cultural significance, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing opened on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 for the purpose of considering a
proposal to designate the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca
landmark has been concluded on August 8, 2017, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the New York State Building & Structure Inventory Form
dated August 1, 2012, including the Narrative Description of Property and the Narrative
Description of Significance prepared by the Secretary of the Commission, L. Truame, based
on materials submitted to the ILPC in 2012 by Sara Johnson and Kristen Olsen of
Historic Ithaca, Inc., with Mary Raddant Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has also reviewed the revised New York State Building & Structure Inventory
Form dated August 8, 2017, including the Narrative Description of the Property and the
revised Narrative Description of Significance prepared by the Secretary of the Commission,
B. McCracken, based materials provided by Christine O’Malley and Sara Johnson of
Historic Ithaca, Inc., and Mary Raddant Tomlan, City Historian, and
WHEREAS, the proposal is a Type II action under the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act
and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and as such requires no further
environmental review, and
WHEREAS, consideration of the Chacona Block as an historic resource was introduced in a report
prepared by Mary Tomlan and John Schroeder on June 14, 2009 entitled Collegetown
Historic Resources Worthy of Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual
Buildings, Architectural Ensembles and Landscape Features, and
WHEREAS, the Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, endorsed by Common Council
in August, 2009, recommends that “historically significant resources within the entire
Collegetown Planning Area which merit designation as local landmarks, but which
currently have no such protection, should be identified by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission and designated by Common Council,” and
WHEREAS, based on the information provided in the Collegetown Historic Resources Worthy of
Detailed Research: Icons of Collegetown, Individual Buildings, Architectural
Ensembles and Landscape Features document and the recommendation from the
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, the ILPC conducted an intensive-
level survey of twelve properties within the Collegetown Planning Area that appeared
to meet the eligibility requirements for local designation as set forth in Section 228-3B
of the Municipal Code in 2012 , and
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
2
WHEREAS, the New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form, which is being used as the
basis for considering this recommended designation, was prepared as part of the
aforementioned intensive-level survey, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-3 of the Municipal Code defines the criteria for designation of an
individual landmark as follows:
1. Possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the
cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant person(s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced an age; or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community by virtue of
its unique location or singular physical characteristics.
RESOLVED, that the Commission adopts as its own, the documentation and information more
fully set forth in the expanded New York State Building Structure Inventory Form
dated August 8, 2017, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the
proposed designation.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance portion of the New York State
Historic Resource Inventory Form prepared by L. Truame and dated August 1, 2012,
the Chacona Block and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-1, is
a structure deemed worthy of preservation, by reason of its value to the city as
enumerated below:
Per criterion 1, the Chacona Block possesses special historical and aesthetic
interest as a part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of
the City of Ithaca through its close association with the development and growth of
Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking housing in close proximity
to Cornell University, and for its role in the development of Collegetown as an urban
neighborhood separate from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct character.
As described in the Narrative Description of Significance, Cornell University
offered few lodging opportunities for its students, faculty and staff when it
open in 1868. As a result, boarding and rooming houses as well as many
student-oriented service industries were established in close proximity to the
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
3
university starting in the 1870s and 1880s. By the first two decades of the
20th century, preference in the rental housing market in Ithaca, particularly
among the faculty and staff living in the area that would become known as
Collegetown, had shifted away from single-room rentals like those found in
the boarding and rooming houses to flat-style apartments—a urban-housing
mode that contained kitchen, bathroom and living areas in one private unit.
Built between 1911 and 1912, the Chacona Block was one of the first mixed-
use mercantile-residential buildings to be constructed near the University to
meet this demand. Its three ground-floor commercial spaces housed
businesses that catered to the ever growing student population while the
upper-story flats provided independent housing opportunities for
professionals living in Collegetown.
The Narrative Description of Significance further notes that “the construction of
the Chacona Block was a key part of Collegetown’s transformation from an
extension of the downtown housing and services to a vibrant neighborhood
with a distinct identity.” As one of the first mixed-use commercial-style
buildings on College Avenue, the construction of the Chacona Block marked
the beginning of the gradual urbanization of the 400 block of that street, a
process that allowed the street to become the commercial and housing center
of a neighborhood centered on the needs of students.
Per criterion 2, the Chacona Block is identified with historically significant
person(s) or event(s) through its association with the Chacona family, the
proprietors of a chain of successful confectionery and ice cream shops in Ithaca and
beyond in the late nineteenth- and early-twentieth centuries, and John N. Chacona,
specifically.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, John N. Chacona, was an
active and influential member of the Greek-American business community in
Ithaca at the turn of the 20th century. John N. Chacona was born in Sparta,
Greece in 1884 and immigrated to the United States at the age of nine. He
settled in the Ithaca area in 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy
Company on East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona. John P.
Chacona was known as “Big John” and John N. Chacona was known as
“Little John”. The two operated successful confectionary stores together and
independently, not only in Ithaca but also in Buffalo and Syracuse. When
their partnership dissolved, John N. opened several independent
confectionary shops, the first being at 416 Eddy St. He also operated the
Sugar Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona. John
N. commissioned the Chacona block in 1912 and opened another
confectionary shop in the storefront at 415 College Avenue. With its close
proximity to Cornell University, this shop and John N. Chacona, himself,
became important parts of the social lives of Cornell University students
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
4
Per criterion 3, the Chacona Block embodies the distinguishing characteristics
of an architectural style.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the Chacona Block is a
good local example of the commercial form of the Renaissance-Revival Style.
The building’s architecture also represents a community-supported
movement to make the buildings in Collegetown more fire resistant in the
early-20th century. The building was designed to be “fire proof,” and was
constructed of fire-resistant materials, heated with steam, and illuminated
with electric lights to reduce the danger of fire. Furthermore, the building
derives additional significance from its unique architectural features that
reflect the heritage of the family that commissioned it. Positioned between
the windows on fourth story, the lion’s head and Greek cross decorative
plaques denote the Chacona family’s Greek origins.
Per criterion 4, the Chacona Block is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age.
As noted in the Narrative Description of Significance, the building’s designer, John
M. Wilgus, was a locally well-known architect in the late-nineteenth and early-
twentieth centuries. He was responsible for the design of several Collegetown-
area mercantile-residential buildings, including the McAllister Block at the
corner of Eddy and Williams Streets (1907), the John J Gainey Block
(demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Rd (1899), and
another Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue (1908). He also designed the
brick commercial building at 114-118 South Cayuga Street and several
downtown residences, many of them located in National Register Historic
Districts. Wilgus’s pragmatic designs ranged widely in terms of architectural
style and programmatic use, and reflected the functional and economic needs
of his clients.
Per criterion 5, The Chacona Block represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the community by virtue of its unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues and opposite the stone
bridge over Cascadilla Creek, the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue
has served as a gateway building into the Collegetown neighborhood from
Cornell University since its construction in 1912. As noted in the Narrative the
Description of Significance, this prominently located property was sought after as
a business location by the early 1900s and its development, including
marketing and sale of the property, design and construction of the building,
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Meeting Held Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Chacona Block
5
and the appearance and amenities of the completed building, were well
documented in numerous local and regional publications.
RESOLVED, that the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, determines that based on the
findings set forth above, the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue meets criterion
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 defining a Local Landmark as set forth in Section 228-4 of the
Municipal Code, Landmarks Preservation, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby recommends the designation of the Chacona Block at
411-415 College Avenue as a City of Ithaca local historic landmark.
RECORD OF VOTE:
Moved by: K. Olson
Seconded by: S. Stein
In Favor: S. Stein, D. Kramer, E. Finegan, K. Olson, J. Minner
Against: 0
Abstain: 0
Absent: S. Gibian, M.M. McDonald
Vacancies: 0
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM
NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION OFFICE USE ONLY
USN:
& HISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY 12188
(518) 237-8643
IDENTIFICATION
Property name(if any)
Address or Street Location
County Town/City Village/Hamlet:
Owner Address
Original use Current use
Architect/Builder, if known Date of construction, if known
DESCRIPTION
Materials -- please check those materials that are visible
Exterior Walls: wood clapboard wood shingle vertical boards plywood
stone brick poured concrete concrete block
vinyl siding aluminum siding cement-asbestos other:
Roof: asphalt, shingle asphalt, roll wood shingle metal slate
Foundation: stone brick poured concrete concrete block
Other materials and their location:
Alterations, if known: Date:
Condition: excellent good fair deteriorated
Photos
Provide several clear, original photographs of the property proposed for nomination. Submitted views should represent the property as a
whole. For buildings or structures, this includes exterior and interior views, general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. Color
prints are acceptable for initial submissions.
Please staple one photograph providing a complete view of the structure or property to the front of this sheet. Additional views should be
submitted in a separate envelope or stapled to a continuation sheet.
Maps
Attach a printed or drawn locational map indicating the location of the property in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely
recognized features so that the property can be accurately positioned. Show a north arrow. Include a scale or estimate distances where
possible.
Prepared by: address
Telephone:email Date
(See Reverse)
Chacona Block
411-415 College Avenue
Tompkins Ithaca
Student Agencies, Inc. 409 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY 14850
mixed-use mixed-use
John M. Wilgus 1911-12
✔stucco
see continuation sheet
✔
B. McCracken 108 E. Green St., Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274-6555 bmccracken@cityofithaca.org 8/8/17
Print FormSubmit by Email
STATEANDNATIONALREGISTERSPROGRAM
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM 2
Revised 9/09
Field Services Bureau • Division for Historic Preservation • New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation • www.nysparks.com/shpo
PLEASEPROVIDETHEFOLLOWINGINFORMATION
NarrativeDescriptionofProperty :Brieflydescribetheprop ertyanditssetting.Includeaverbaldescriptionofthe
location(e.g.,northsideofNY17,westofJonesRoad);ageneraldescriptionofthebuilding,structureorfeature
includingsuchitemsasarchitecturalstyle(ifknown),number ofstories,typeandshape ofroof(flat,gabled,
mansard,shedorother),materialsandlandscapefe atures.Identifyand describeanyassociatedbuildings,
structuresorfeaturesontheproperty,suchas garages,silos,privies,pools,gravesites.Identifyanyknown
exteriorandinterioralterationssuch asadditions,replacementwindows,aluminum orvinylsidingorchangesin
plan.Includedatesofconstructionandalteration,ifknown.Attachadditionalsheetsasneeded.
NarrativeDescriptionofSignificance:Brieflydescribethosecharacteristics bywhichthispropertymaybe
consideredhistoricallysignificant.Significancemay include,butisnotlimited to,astructurebeinganintact
representativeofanarchitecturalorengineeringtypeorstyl e(e.g.,GothicRevivalstylecottage,Prattthrough
trussbridge);associationwithhistoriceventso rbroadpatternsoflocal,stateornationalhistory(e.g.,acottonmill
fromaperiodofgrowthinlocalindustry,aseasidecott agerepresentingalocale'shistoryasaresortcommunity,a
structureassociatedwithactivitiesofthe"underground railroad.");orbyassociation withpersonsororganizations
significantatalocal,stateornationallevel.Simplyput,whyi sthispropertyimportantt oyouandthecommunity.
Attachadditionalsheetsasneeded.
See continuation sheet
See continuation sheet
Narrative Description of Property:
Chacona Block, 411-415 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The Chacona Block is a 3 ½-story, commercial-style, stucco-clad building constructed in
1911-1912 in the Renaissance Revival Style. Three plaques on the building’s façade depict
lions’ heads and a Greek cross, a reference to builder John N. Chacona’s Greek heritage.
The building occupies a prominent location in the heart of Collegetown at the edge of the
Cornell University campus. It is among the earlier commercial-style buildings constructed
in Collegetown to provide both rental apartments and commercial space.
Located at the corner of College and Oak Avenues at a prominent site adjacent to the campus of
Cornell University, this representative of the commercial, Renaissance Revival Style is a mixed-
use building housing commercial space in its three ground-floor storefronts and residential space
in its upper stories. The building anchors the corner of a continuous row of mixed-use,
commercial buildings on the southern side of the College Avenue Bridge. The Chacona Block
and the Larkin Building, located in the same commercial row, were constructed in the early
twentieth century and set the tone for the late-twentieth century buildings that complete the block
today. Neighboring wood-frame buildings were replaced by these newer commercial buildings,
appropriately-scaled and complimentary to the historic Chacona and Larkin buildings as well as
their neighbor across the street, Sheldon Court. The Chacona’s location on a trapezoidal-shaped,
corner lot allows for a large, outdoor gathering space on its north elevation, currently used as an
outdoor dining area for Collegetown Bagels, which occupies the storefront of 415 College
Avenue. This space is important to the neighborhood’s character, providing a gathering space for
the Cornell University and Collegetown community in a neighborhood with little outdoor public
space.
To the north of the Chacona Block, the historic stone arch College Avenue bridge across
Cascadilla Creek connects the Collegtown neighborhood to the Cornell University campus. To
the immediate east is St. Luke Lutheran Church at 109 Oak Avenue, constructed in 1923-24.
Further along Oak Avenue are late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century homes, most
converted for student or fraternity housing, and the Cascadilla School on the corner of Oak and
Summit Avenues. Across College Avenue to the west are Sheldon Court and Cornell’s Schwartz
Center for the Performing Arts, with Cascadilla Hall further west. To the south along the 300
block of College Avenue are more commercial buildings, most of them dating from the late-
twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries; along the 100 and 200 blocks of College Avenue are
formerly single-family homes converted to student apartments, except for the Grand View House
at 209 College Avenue, the last surviving of Collegetown’s great boardinghouses.
The Chacona Block is constructed of hollow clay tile and brick with a steel frame. The
building’s three-bay, four-story principal façade (west) contains three storefronts in the first
story, with a simple cornice dividing the first story from the upper stories of the building. Each
bay of the second and third stories contains a group of three 6/1 windows, with the center
window being slightly wider than the two flanking it. In the fourth story, the center windows of
the north and south bays are replaced with a round lion’s-head plaque. In place of the center
bay’s center window is a round plaque depicting a shield emblazoned with a Greek cross. The
flanking windows on the fourth story are 4/1 and shorter than the windows of the stories below.
The west façade is capped by a wide cornice and stepped parapet. Upper floor windows
throughout the building lack moldings or ornament, with the exception of simple sills clad in the
same pebble-dash stucco as the walls.
The northernmost storefront, designated as 415 College Avenue, consists of a central expanse of
plate glass topped with several fixed sash each containing many small lights in a grid pattern of 9
units in width, 7 in height. This glazing pattern appears to be original to the building, and
continues into the angled, sheltered storefront entrance shared by the entrance to the northern
apartments’ stair hall as well as the entrance to the center storefront, designated as 413 College
Avenue. The ceiling of the sheltered entrance is finished with pressed metal panels, likely
original to the building. Surmounting the plate glass windows of the center storefront is an art-
glass transom window, likely original to the building, partially visible behind a modern sign.
The southernmost storefront, at 411 College Avenue, departs in appearance from the northern
two and was extensively altered sometime after 19751. Where it once had a sheltered entrance
similar to the one shared by 413 and 415, it now has a vaguely Gothic-Revival style appearance,
including windows with pointed-arch mullions, a round-arched entry door, and heavy wood
paneling and moldings.
Brick pilasters mark the north and south corners of the west façade and delineate the 411 and 413
storefronts. In a 1975 photograph, these appear to be stuccoed and/or painted to match the
exterior wall treatment of the upper stories.2
The north façade of the Chacona Block consists of six bays, with single 6/1 windows on the
second and third stories centered over first-story bays of large plate-glass windows each topped
with two transom sash containing 6 lights. The exception to the pattern is in the second bay from
the east, which contains paired 6/1 windows on the second and third stories over a glass
1 New York State Building-Structure Inventory Form photograph, 1975, Historic Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY
2 Ibid.
greenhouse-type structure (added after 19753) within the first story bay which provides a second
entrance to the commercial space. There are no fourth-story windows on the north façade. The
brick wall and pilasters dividing the bays of the first story appears to have been originally
stuccoed to match the upper stories. The wall terminates in a parapet which steps down towards
the rear (east) of the building, disguising a low-slope shed roof. A palimpsest suggests that the
height of the building was increased at some point prior to 1954.4
At the rear (east) façade, a three-story partially-enclosed addition (at one time open porches)
includes a fire escape. At the south, the single-story storefront of 409 College Avenue forms a
continuous streetwall at the ground level. The upper floors of the south façade are similar to the
north façade, except for the elevator shaft of 409 College Avenue which adjoins the Chacona
Block about midway along the south façade, providing elevator access to both 409 and 411-415.
Narrative Description of Significance:
Chacona Block, 411-415 College Avenue, Ithaca, NY
The Chacona Block is architecturally significant as a nearly intact example of a local
interpretation of the commercial form of the Renaissance Revival Style.
The Chacona Block is significant for its close association with the growth and development
of Cornell University, as an example of the early-twentieth century response to the
changing housing needs and preferences of those seeking to reside in proximity to the
campus, and for its role in the development of Collegetown, particularly College Avenue, as
an urban neighborhood separate from downtown Ithaca and with its own distinct
character. Built in 1911-12 as a mixed-use, fireproof, commercial-style building replacing
an earlier wood boardinghouse, the construction of the Chacona Block on a site adjacent to
the campus of Cornell University established it as one of Collegetown’s most prominent
and recognizable buildings. The Chacona Block has additional local significance for its
association with John N. Chacona, the owner of a successful chain of confectionary and ice
cream shops in Ithaca, as well as with the larger Greek business community in Ithaca.
The building’s designer, John M. Wilgus, was locally well-known in the late 19th and early
20th centuries as the architect of several Collegetown-area mercantile-residential buildings,
including the McAllister Block at the corner of Eddy and Williams Streets (1907-08), the
John J. Gainey Block (demolished) at the corner of College Avenue and Dryden Road
(1899), and another Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue (1908), as well as the Chacona
Block. Wilgus also designed the brick commercial building at 114¬118 S. Cayuga St. and
several downtown residences, many of which are located within National Register districts.
3 Ibid
4 Tompkins County Department of Assessment, Tompkins County Tax Assessment photograph, 1954, Historic
Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY.
Wilgus’s father John B. Wilgus and uncle Henry L. Wilgus were successful merchants who
erected the Wilgus Block at the corner of State and Tioga Streets.
________________________
Along with the rest of Collegetown and much of the present-day city of Ithaca, the Chacona
Block property was part of the extensive holdings amassed by Simeon DeWitt following the
allotment of lands within the Military Tract. The area now called Collegetown was settled
relatively early due to the abundant water power provided by Cascadilla Creek. In 1827 Otis
Eddy, for whom Eddy Street is named, established his cotton mill on the current site of
Cascadilla Hall. Eddy had already constructed a dam in Cascadilla Gorge to direct water to his
mill pond. Called Willow Pond, it endured until the 1890s, crossed by Huestis Street
immediately north of the present-day sites of the Chacona Block and Sheldon Court.
Much of the land on East Hill was farmed or grazed during the early 19th century, and in 1857
the DeWitt farm north of Cascadilla Creek was purchased by Ezra Cornell, who would go on to
donate 200 acres for the campus of his namesake university. To the south of the creek, much of
present-day Collegetown was part of the 21-acre John and Samuel Giles estate. Possibly
anticipating commercial and residential development after the opening of Cornell University in
1868, the Giles heirs divided the estate into urban¬size parcels and sold them in the 1870s. The
lot that would become 411-415 College Avenue was identified as Lot #4 of the John and Samuel
Giles estate; the lot that would become 409 College Avenue was Lot #3.5
The shortage of student housing that continues to plague Cornell today began as soon as the
University opened in 1868. At that time, the university provided only two lodging facilities:
Cascadilla Hall and a portion of Morrill Hall. Cascadilla Hall was repurposed building designed
(but never used) as a water-cure sanitarium located on the rim of the gorge across Cascadilla
Creek from the campus. Morrill Hall was the first building designed and constructed for
university use, and included both residential and instructional space. Those who did not lodge on
campus rented rooms in homes downtown and endured multiple daily treks up East Hill before
omnibus service began in 1876.
It appears that the first structure on the site of the Chacona Block was the boardinghouse
constructed for Ellen M. Murphy in 1884 to cater to Cornell University students living off-
campus in proximity to the student-oriented services beginning to flourish at the edge of campus.
The house appears in an undated photograph prior to 1904 as a 2¬story frame gable-and-ell
structure with several projections and additions probably intended to maximize the number of
rentable rooms.6 It was one of four large, wood frame, residential style buildings on the east side
of the block. This prominently located property across from Sheldon Court was sought after as a
5 Deed conveying 413-415 College Avenue to Student Agencies Properties, Inc. from Lynn Breedlove and Gary Gut,
May 19 1977, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, book 557, page 467, Ithaca, NY. Deed conveying 411 College
Avenue to John E. Van Natta from Giles heirs, April 8 1876, Office of the Tompkins County Clerk, book 9, page 325,
Ithaca, NY.
6 Carol Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds., Ithaca’s Neighborhoods, (Ithaca, NY: DeWitt
Historical Society of Tompkins County, 1988), 168. The photograph also shows the Otis Eddy Mill Pond, which had
disappeared by the time the publication of the 1904 Sanborn Maps company fire insurance map of Ithaca.
business location by the early 1900s, with a January 9, 1908 Ithaca Daily News article reporting
that Ms. Murphy turned down an offer of $13,000 for the property amid speculation that the east
side of the 400 block of College Avenue would soon be developed into one business block.7
During the planning of the Chacona Block in 1911, it was noted that Mr. Chacona had not yet
decided whether the existing boardinghouse building would be torn down or relocated.8
The heyday of the Collegetown boardinghouses lasted from around 1880 to 1915. During this
time, they provided meals to many who lodged elsewhere – downtown or within fraternity
houses that lacked dining facilities. The advent of on-campus cafeterias sounded the death-knell
for the boardinghouses, already losing business to the newer rooming-houses and apartment
buildings appearing in Collegetown. By 1919 only one of the four early boardinghouses
remained on the 400 block of College Avenue.
John N. Chacona purchased 411 and 413-415 College Avenue from Ellen Murphy on June 30,
1911. The Chacona Block was constructed to reflect the existence of the two parcels, with a
masonry wall dividing the ground floor along the property line. For many years following
Chacona’s ownership, the two parcels were held by different owners.
The plans for the new building were made public August 3, 19119 and newspaper coverage
followed the project until its completion in 1912. The cost of the building was estimated at
$30,000-$40,000. It contained space on the ground floor for three shops, and three six-room flats
on each of the second and third floors, all “strictly up-to-date with all modern conveniences,”
including a vacuum cleaning system, steam heat, and electric light.10 The attic was designated for
storage. The northern two apartments on each floor were accessible from a common, skylit
stairway and hall, while the southern apartments were reached from a separate entrance and stair
hall, lit by windows opening to a narrow light well between the southern and central units.
Masonry, structural steel and carpentry work was contracted to the Ithaca Contracting Company,
plumbing and heating work were done by W. C. Dean, wiring and electrical work by Davis-
Brown Electrical Company, “painters and decorators” were the firm of Vredenburg, Kelly &
Bell, and the windows, plate glass, and builder’s hardware were supplied by Treman, King &
Co.11
The Chacona Block apartments were representative of flat-style apartment units, an urban
housing mode that contained kitchen, bathroom, and living areas in one private unit. This type of
apartment became popular in Ithaca during the first two decades of the twentieth century,
particularly in Collegetown.
The building was designed by the locally prominent architect, John M. Wilgus, who enjoyed a
more than forty-five year career in the field. In contrast to most of his professional
contemporaries such as A. B. Dale, William H. Miller, Clinton Vivian, and the partners of the
firm of Gibb & Waltz, John M. Wilgus was raised in Ithaca, where his family was actively
7 Ithaca Daily News, January 9, 1908, page 5.
8 Ithaca Chronicle and Democrat, August 17, 1911, page 5.
9 Ithaca Weekly Journal, August 3,1911, page 6.
10 Ithaca Chronicle and Democrat, August 17, 1911, page 5. Ithaca Daily Journal, July 13,1912, page 9.
11 Ithaca Daily News, August 16, 1911, page 3.
involved in the business and social life of the city from the mid-19th through the early-20th
centuries. His father John B. and uncle Henry L. Wilgus commissioned the Wilgus Block,
erected in 1867-68 at the southwest corner of State and Tioga Streets, home to the Wilgus Bros.
retail firm and Wilgus Hall (later Wilgus Opera House), a site now occupied by a portion of the
Center Ithaca building. Local newspapers regularly reported on activities and events associated
with Wilgus family members, such as the February 5, 1880, wedding of John M. and Carrie
Thompson, the daughter of Ithaca grocer Thaddeus Thompson, complete with a description of
the bride’s attire, wedding gifts (including a calendar clock) and the presence of the “city
orchestra” at the reception.12 The marriage in 1890 of John’s sister, Lois, to Cornell graduate J.
Herbert Ballantine, a member of the noted New Jersey brewing company, was covered as “the
nuptial event of the season.”13 The press followed the career of John’s brother, Charles, who
purchased and consolidated two newspapers in Ravenna, Ohio, commissioning John to design a
substantial new building there in 1904.14 The travels of John, Carrie and their daughter Amelia
were also noted by the local papers, whether trips to visit friends in Auburn, New York, to the
Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo in 1901 or to visit family in Pasadena, California in 1913.15
John M. Wilgus began his architectural career in the mid-1880s, and as a member of an
established family within the Ithaca community, he likely had numerous social and business
connections that would bolster his long and successful career. Unlike some of his
contemporaries, John M. Wilgus did not pursue architectural studies at Cornell University or
work in the prestigious office of William H. Miller. After some limited design work on his own,
he partnered with Alfred B. Dale, a well-known local architect during the last half of the 19th
century. 16Dale’s works included the Boardman House at 120 E. Buffalo St. (DeWitt Park
Historic District), the Griffin Block at 224 E. State St. (NR Ithaca Downtown Historic District),
and the Andrus-Whiton House at 222 S. Aurora St. (Individual Local Landmark). Although this
partnership was short-lived,17 it undoubtedly gave Wilgus valuable professional experience and
exposure to potential clients within and outside of the community. In June 1887, Wilgus set up
his own office in the Wilgus Block, and began designing buildings that ranged widely in terms of
architectural style and programmatic use.18 His works included everything from single-family
residences to three- and four-story mixed-use buildings to a least one religious structure. Some of
his early residential works included the F. M. Bush House at 110 N. Albany St. (1889;
Downtown West Historic District), E. P. Gilbert House at 518 E. State St. (c. 1893; East Hill
Historic District), and C. A. Ives duplex at 204 N. Cayuga St. (1893; DeWitt Park Historic
District).19 Wilgus’s mixed-use commercial and apartment buildings included the Livingston
Apartments at 318 E. Seneca St. (1896), 114-118 S. Cayuga St. (1898; NR Ithaca Downtown
Historic District), the McAllister Block at 418-426 Eddy St. (1894-95; redesigned and rebuilt
1908-09 after fire; East Hill Historic District), and the Gainey Block at 315-317 College Avenue
12 Ithaca Daily Journal, February 6, 1880, page 4.
13 Ithaca Democrat, September 25, 1890, page 1.
14 Ithaca Democrat, August 29,, 1895, page 5; Ithaca Daily Journal, May 28, 1904, page 3, respectively.
15 Ithaca Daily Journal, June 16, 1904, page 3; October 5, 1901, page 3; February 3, 1913, page 6, respectively.
16 Ithaca Daily Journal, Aug. 17, 1883, page 3; 1886 Ithaca City Directory.
17 Ithaca Daily Journal, June 9, 1887, page 3.
18 1888 Ithaca City Directory.
19 Ithaca Daily Journal, Apr. 17, 1888, page 3; Ithaca Daily Journal, Jan. 9, 1889, p.3; Ithaca Democrat, Aug. 17,
1893, page 5.
(1908).20 These buildings exhibit characteristics that reflect Wilgus’s pragmatic and economical
approach to building design, specifically their relatively simple brick façades with limited
ornamentation.
One of Wilgus’s more distinctive commissions, the First Church of Christ, Scientist again
demonstrated his ability to meet the aesthetic, practical and financial needs of his clients.
Located at the base of Cascadilla Park, an early-20th century planned residential development
along Cascadilla Gorge, this Craftsman Style church was designed to meet the aesthetic
requirements of this upscale development and the financial restrictions of the congregation that
commissioned it. Built in 1910-11, the church’s simple design reflected the architectural quality
of the surrounding residences, provided the programmatic space needed by the congregation, and
proved buildable within the limited means of the organization.21
The design of the Chacona Block at 411-415 College Avenue reflected this same practical
approach to design as well as the architect’s consideration of the needs and wishes of his client.
Reminiscent of his other mixed-use, commercial, and apartment buildings, Wilgus’s design for
the Chacona Block included a relatively unadorned west façade and north elevation, a simple
wood cornice and a stepped parapet. The building’s large windows openings, skylight over the
central interior staircase and light well between 411 and 413-415 College Avenue admitted
natural light into the interior spaces and reduced the need for artificial light, an expensive
amenity in 1912. The original storefronts on the 413-415 College Avenue reflected this same
design approach but on a much smaller scale. The large plate glass windows at street level on
the west façade and north elevation allowed pedestrians to easily see the merchandise within the
shops. The prism-glass transoms over the plate glass windows on the west façade provided
ventilation through their casement openings and directed natural light into the deep commercial
spaces, again reducing the need for artificial light. The wood cornice above the glazed
storefronts and the recessed doors completed the simple, yet highly functional, storefront
composition.
The client’s influence on the design was most distinctly represented in the pebble-dash stucco
exterior, a unique feature of this design, and the west façade’s stone plaques. The building’s
distinctive lion’s head and Greek cross decorative plaques at the fourth floor bore witness to
John N. Chacona’s native land.
Wilgus’s design also addressed concerns about life-safety in the quickly urbanizing Collegetown
neighborhood. Fires remained a tremendous threat in the neighborhood well into the early-20th
century. This danger was the result of the lack of running water in some buildings, the continued
use of kerosene and gas lighting, and the lack of organized fire protection for Collegetown.
Although the Company No. 9 firehouse was established in 1895 and a better water supply
secured, major fires continued to destroy properties on the hill. A 1907 fire damaged several
Eddy Street buildings, including the locations of the John Chacona Candy Company store, the
Student Agencies laundry, and a men’s clothing shop, possibly the Toggery Shops which moved
20 Ithaca Daily Journal, Feb. 15, 1910, page 5; National Register of Historic Places, Ithaca Downtown Historic
District, Ithaca, Tompkins, New York, National Register #04NR05326; Ithaca Democrat, Sept. 13, 1894, page 5, and
Ithaca Daily Journal, Nov. 11, 1908, page 3; Ithaca Daily Journal, Mar. 28, 1908, page 6, respectively.
21 Ithaca Daily Journal, May 23, 1910, page 3; July 15, 1910, page 3.
to the new Chacona Block along with the candy store in 1912. The modern rooming houses and
apartment buildings constructed in the early 1900s – Sheldon Court, the Larkin Building and
others – were constructed of fire-resistant materials, heated with steam, and illuminated with
electric lights to reduce the danger of fire. Wilgus incorporated these features as well as
structural terra cotta tile and stucco, steel framing and abundant sources of natural light into the
design to reduce the threat posed by fire.22
The commissioner of the Chacona Block, John N. Chacona, was an active and influential
member of the Greek-American business community in Ithaca at the turn of the 20th century.
John N. Chacona was born in Sparta, Greece in 1884 and immigrated to the United States at the
age of nine. He settled in the Ithaca area in 1899 and worked at the Chacona Candy Company on
East State Street with his cousin, John P. Chacona.23 John P. Chacona was known as “Big John”
and John N. Chacona was known as “Little John”. These nicknames were commonly known and
frequently used to distinguish John P. from John N. in newspaper accounts of their business and
family activities. The two operated successful confectionary stores together and independently,
not only in Ithaca but also in Buffalo and Syracuse. When their partnership dissolved, John N.
opened several independent confectionary shops, the first being at 416 Eddy St. He also
operated the Sugar Bowl restaurant, a business he purchased from John P. Chacona.24
With the completion of the Chacona block in 1912, John N. opened another confectionary shop
in the storefront at 415 College Avenue. With its close proximity to Cornell University,
Chacona’s confectionary shop at 415 College Avenue, and John N. Chacona, himself, became
important parts of student life. In the April 26, 1918 issue of the Cornell Daily Sun, the satirical
“Freshman Rules for 1918-19” referenced the store in rule number three: “no freshman shall be
allowed in Chacona’s or downstairs in Candyland under any circumstances, nor upstairs in
either, unless accompanied by an upperclassman.”25 References to the John N. Chacona and his
candy shop appeared regularly in the Cornell Era, a student produced publication published
between 1868 and 1924. A poem titled “Fame” by Morris Bishop, class of 1913 and later
Cornell historian, in the 1912-1913 issue of this publication included these lines: “With the John
N. Chacona Hussars/Then followed the Greeks of the Candy Trade,/Their Martial rage to
evince/And red-haired youths spoiled my drinks/(I’ve hardly recovered since).”26
Apart from Chacona’s confectionary shop in 415 College Avenue, the storefronts at 411 and 413
College Avenue were occupied by numerous student-oriented businesses in the second and third
decades of the 20th century, including The Toggery Shops, a billiards establishment, A & B
22 An announcement in a local newspaper awarding the bids for the construction of the building noted that the
building was to be constructed of hollow tile with a stucco exterior, and that steel was to be used for girders and
beams. The masonry, structural steel and carpentry contract was reported to have been let to Ithaca Contracting
Company. Ithaca Chronicle & Democrat , August 17, 1911, page X. Upon completion of the Chacona Block, the No.
9 hook and ladder truck was called out to determine whether the extension ladder could reach the top of the new
building; it exceeded the height of the building by five feet. Ithaca Daily News, May 17, 1912, page 3
23 “J.N. Chacona’s Twenty Years,” Ithaca Daily News, August 16,1919, page 5
24 “They Linked Greece to Ithaca,” The Ithaca Journal, July 15, 1989, page 14A.
25 Cornell Daily Sun, April 26, 1918
26 “Fame,” Cornell Era, 1912-13, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 3.
Stores selling student supplies, and the Orchard Tea Shop. Pop’s Place, the confectionary shop
and, later, restaurant operated by John G. Papayanakos, replaced the Chacona shop in the corner
space at 415 College Avenue. During this time, at least two physicians rented flats for use as
offices, while they resided elsewhere. Several Chacona family members, including John N.
Chacona, also lived in the building. Although it was in a prime location for attracting student
renters, the building’s other early occupants were widows and professionals, including the
principal of the Cascadilla School, suggesting that the six-room flats were beyond the means of
most students at the time.27
The relocation of John N. Chacona’s confectionary shop from Eddy Street to College Avenue
was part of a larger shift in student- and university-oriented businesses from Eddy Street to
College Avenue in the early decades of the twentieth century. Other businesses that moved from
Eddy Street to College Avenue at this time were L.C. Bement’s Toggery Shops, relocating to the
Chacona Block, and the Taylor & Co. Book Shop, relocating to ground floor of Sheldon Court.
While the nineteenth century saw student-oriented development both downtown and at the edge
of campus with a concentration along Eddy Street, in the early twentieth century, the
construction of large, commercial-style mixed-use buildings firmly established the 400 block of
College Avenue as the heart of Collegetown. The construction of the Chacona Block was a key
part of the area’s transformation from an extension of downtown housing and services to a
vibrant neighborhood with a distinct identity. The distinct shift was documented in following
passage in the October 16, 1912 issue of the Cornell Alumni News:
Mercantile changes have taken place on the fringe of the campus. Right at the end
of College Avenue (Huestis Street), near the campus entrance, across from
Sheldon Court, Little John Chacona has built a big stucco block for stores and
apartments. Little John sells candy and ice cream there. One of the stores in the
block has been occupied by L.C. Bement, the hatter, hosier, etc., etc., who has
given up his shop on Eddy Street. Taylor & Company also have closed their Eddy
Street store and have doubled the size of the Triangle Book Shop in Sheldon Court.
Business tends to seek the center of population, and the student center has moved
up the hill in recent years. Hence the removals from Eddy Street. College Avenue
now drains a big area of students every day, and it is lined with shops for two long
blocks.28
The dual nomenclature of College Avenue in this passage alluded to a significant event that
permanently marked this street as the geographic center of Collegetown. With support from the
street residents and business owners, the City of Ithaca renamed Huestis Street as College
Avenue in 1908.
Three years after opening his 415 College Avenue store, he sold the business to his brothers,
Paul and Marcus, when he sailed to Greece to visit family. Upon his return to Ithaca in 1917,
John N. purchased the confectionary back from his brothers and operated the business until 1919,
27 Ithaca city directories, 1864-1981, Historic Ithaca, Inc., Ithaca, NY.
28 Cornell Alumni News, October 16, 1912.
when he sold the shop and block and returned to Greece, this time to bring his wife and children
back to Ithaca.29 He also established Cozy Corners, a “delicatessen lunch and imported food
novelty shop,” at the corner of E Buffalo and N. Aurora Streets in 1926.30
In 1919 John N. Chacona sold the Chacona Block and confectionary business to James P. and
John G. Papayanakos, immigrants or their descendants hailing from the same Greek village as
the Chaconas. Papayanakos' business became known as Pop's Place and operated at 415 College
Avenue until 1977 under a series of owners, many of whom were Greek-American.31 In fact, the
ownership of the building and proprietorship of tenant businesses at 413-415 College Avenue
through much of the twentieth century appears to have been by immigrants and/or their
descendants from the same village.32 The close business associations of these families were part
of the national pattern of cultural and family ties maintained by Greek and other immigrant
groups.
The southern portion of the Chacona Block, 411 College Avenue, came under different
ownership in 1925 when it was sold to George F. Doll, the proprietor of a men’s clothing shop
occupying the storefront of 411. In 1954 he sold the property to Emmet M. and Mabel Doane
(Mabel operated the Hill Beauty Shoppe out of the storefront of 411), who in turn sold to Student
Agencies Properties, Inc. in 1972. The owners of 413-415 College Avenue at that time, Lynn
Breedlove and Gary Gut, sold the northern portion of the Chacona Block to Student Agencies in
1977, once again consolidating the two parcels’ ownership.
Student Agencies Properties, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Student Agencies, Inc., the
oldest independent student-run company in the United States. It was founded in 1894, providing
laundry and other profitable services to the student population. For several years the company
was sold from board to board, as students graduated and moved on, before it was finally
incorporated in 1910. With over $2 million in annual revenues, Student Agencies is the second-
largest employer of students after Cornell, and its services include shipping and storage, moving,
campus promotions, note-taking, housing, and publication of the Cornellian Yearbook.33
Student Agencies had made improvements and modifications to the Chacona Block over the last
30 years, including the installation of a sprinkler system. In the 1990s 411 and 413-415, which
already shared a single fire escape, were consolidated into a single parcel.
29 Ithaca Daily Journal, February 15, 1917, page 5.
30 Advertisement, The Ithaca Journal, February 19, 1926, page 13.
31 "Pop's Place, Higher rent ends the experiment," Ithaca Journal, June 9, 1977, page 20.
32 Directory of the Tsintzinian Heritage Society of America. Owners of 413-415 College Avenue included James P.
and John G. Papayanakos (likely two of three brothers who settled in Ithaca in the mid-1920s), George P. Nickles
(original name Nikolaides), Peter J. Poulos (a John J. Poulos reportedly came to Ithaca before 1913), and
Constantine J. Manos (original name Voulomanos). Long-term leases on the candy shop were given to Constantine
J. Manos and George Conomikes (originally Economikis).
33 “Our Company,” Student Agencies, Inc., accessed June 29, 2012,
www.studentagencies.com/info.php?page=our_company
Today, the tenants of the Chacona Block’s storefronts – two eateries and a store selling t-shirts
and other Cornell-logo gear – reflect changes to the character of Collegetown and the orientation
of its businesses in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The variety of businesses
catering to students and other residents once included bookstores, salons and barbershops,
eateries, and clothing and shoe stores. Today, dining and entertainment are by far the largest
proportion of business types in the neighborhood. The residential units within the Chacona
block, reorganized to offer 1-bedroom to 5-bedroom apartments, remain highly desirable as
student rentals.
mw 10/15/2019
APPEAL # 3141 301 EAST STATE STREET
Appeal of Collegetown Bagels for a sign variance from Section 272-4 A (1), requirements for
projecting signs. The property at 301 E. State Street is located on a triangular lot that fronts on E.
State Street, S. Aurora Street, and E. Green Street. Collegetown Bagels is a tenant in a commercial
space located on the E. State Street side of the building and proposes to install one projecting sign on
that side of the new building. The projecting sign is a two-sided, 9.2SF sign that contains the
restaurant name and logo on each side of the sign. 7KHVLJQLV´ZLGHE\´WDOO and will be
mounted on a steel tube that ZLOOSURMHFW´IURPWKHEXLOGLQJIDoDGHThe sign ordinance requires
WKDWDVLJQSURMHFWQRPRUHWKDQ´IURPWKHVXUIDFHWRZKLFKWKHVLJQRUVLJQVWUXFWXUHLVDWWDFKHG
7KHVLJQZLOOSURMHFWRYHUWKHUHVWDXUDQW¶V outdoor seating area and will not encroach upon the public
right-of-way.
The property is located in a CBD-120 use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
the Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18, requires that variances be granted before a sign permit is issued.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals ʊ Notice of Appeal
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal NumberBZA-3141Address: 301 E. State StreetUse DistrictCBD-120Date:November 5, 2019ApplicantCollegetown BagelsOwner: City Centre Assoc. LLCApplication Type:Sign VarianceSign Type Area Setback ProjectionOther RequirementsCollegetown BagelsProjecting Sign 9.2 SF (4.6 SF per side) 35" ** Not IlluminatedRegulations2 Wall Signs Per Business are permitted 2 - 50 S.F. Wall Signs Per Business are permitted Note Non-conforming ConditionsOK* OK Def.***Notes:** Proposed sign is 21" tall by 31.5" wide. The sign structure is 35" wide. The bottom of the sign will hang 8' 3" above grade.* Two other businesses in the building (Ithaca Ale House and Chase) have permitted signs. City Centre was granted a variance in March 2019 for a 160 SF projecting sign.*** Per 272-4A(1), no portion of a sign or its supporting structure shall project more than 18" from the surface to which the sign or sign structure is attached. The proposed sign structure will project 35" from the building facade.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
****************************Office use only*******************************
1. Ordinance Section(s) for the Appeal: Page 2
Zoning Ordinance Section being Appealed Sign Ordinance Section being Appealed
x §325- _________________________________ §272-4A(1)______________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
2. Application of SEQR determination: __ Type 1 __ Type 2 _X_Unlisted
3. Environmental Assessment form used:
__X_ Short Environmental Assessment Form
_ ___ Long Environmental Form
_____ Lead Agency
_____ Determination of Significance
_____ Completed by the Planning Division at preliminary hearing for SPR
4. A previous appeal has,has not, been made for this proposal:
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
5. Notes or Special Conditions:
/(*(1'7D[3DUFHOVZ5HODWHG+LVWRULF3URS&LW\2ZQHG3URSHUW\+LVWRULF'LVWULFW$OO+LVWRULF3URSHUWLHV3DUNLQJ/RWVDQG*DUDJHV%XLOGLQJV5DLOURDG3DUFHO%RUGHU3DUN,PSHUYLRXV6XUIDFHV3DYHG:DONRU6XUIDFHRU3ULYDWH5RDG3DYHG3DUNLQJ3DYHG5RDGZD\RU3XEOLF5RDG8QSDYHG'ULYHRU:DONRU6XUIDFH:DWHUZD\ )HHW 3ULQWHG
gl 3/18/19
APPEAL # 3142 66 WOODCREST AVENUE
Appeal of Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture LAB, on behalf of property owners Chris and Cindy
Milner, for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Maximum Lot Coverage by Buildings,
Column 11, Front Yard, Column 13, Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to add a roof to the existing front stoop and to construct a
screened-in porch on the rear of the dwelling located at 66 Woodcrest Avenue. The addition of the roof
to the front stoop is intended to provide shelter from weather throughout the year and will not create
new or exacerbate existing deficiencies. The applicant also proposes to construct a 306-square foot
screened-in porch on the north side of the house. The new porch will allow the property owners to
enjoy their yard for more of the year. It will also provide a visual screening of the main portion of the
house from users of the adjacent access path to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The property is
currently deficient in lot coverage by buildings and the addition of the new porch will increase this
deficiency from 21.9% to 24.5% of the allowable 20%. It will also create a rear yard deficiency by
UHGXFLQJWKHUHDU\DUGVHWEDFNWR¶´RIWKHUHTXLUHG¶The property has existing front and side
yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-1a residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals ʊ Notice of Appeal
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal Number3142Address66 Woodcrest AvenueUse DistrictR-1aDate11/5/2019ApplicantEmily PetrinaOwnerChris & Cindy MilnerApplication Type:Area VarianceColumn Number2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213 14/1516Column TitleUseAccessory UseOff-Street ParkingOff-Street LoadingLot Area (Sq. Feet)Lot Width (Feet)Number of StoriesHeight in Feet% of Lot CoverageFront Yard Side YardOther Side YardRear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is lessMinimum Building HeightExisting Condition and UseOne family dwelling3 12,080 109.3 1~ 12'21.9% 17.9' 15.4' 9.1' 30.2% or 37.6'District Regulations for ExistingOne Family Zone1None Required10,000 75 3 35 20% 25 10 1025% or 50' but not less than 20'NoneNote Non-Conforming ConditionsOK OK OK OK OK OKOK OKDef. Def.OKDef.OKOKProposed Condition and/or UseOne family dwelling3 12,080 109.3 1~ 12'24.5% 17.9' 15.4' 9.1 22% or 27.7'District Regulation for ProposedOne Family Zone1None Required10,000 75 3 35 20% 25 10 1025% or 50' but not less than 20'NoneNote Non-Conforming Conditions for ProposalOK OK OK OK OK OKOK OKDef. Def.OKDef. Def. OKNotes:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
****************************Office use only*******************************
1. Ordinance Section(s) for the Appeal: Page 2
Zoning Ordinance Section being Appealed Sign Ordinance Section being Appealed
x §325- 8 Column 10, 11, 13, and 14/15 §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
2. Application of SEQR determination: __ Type 1 _X_ Type 2 ___Unlisted
3. Environmental Assessment form used:
_ ___ Short Environmental Assessment Form
_ ___ Long Environmental Assessment Form
__X_ Not Applicable
_____ Completed by the Planning Division at preliminary hearing for SPR
4. A previous appeal has,has not, been made for this proposal:
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
5. Notes or Special Conditions:
)LUHKRXVH$UFKLWHFWXUH/$%3//&
WĂŐĞϭŽĨϮ
&ŝƌĞŚŽƵƐĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ>͕W>>
ŵŝůLJD͘WĞƚƌŝŶĂ͕Z> Wн
ĞŵŝůLJΛĨŚĂůĂď͘ĐŽŵ
KĐƚŽďĞƌϳ͕ϮϬϭϵ
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐŽĨŚƌŝƐĂŶĚŝŶĚLJDŝůŶĞƌ
ϲϲtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚǀĞŶƵĞ
/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ
Z ͗EŽƚŝĐĞŽĨƉƉĞĂůʹŽŶŝŶŐƉƉĞĂůEŽ͘ϯϭϰϮ͕WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽϲϲtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚǀĞŶƵĞ
ĞĂƌEĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕
/ĂŵƐĞŶĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐůĞƚƚĞƌƚŽLJŽƵŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨŚƌŝƐĂŶĚŝŶĚLJDŝůŶĞƌ͕ŽǁŶĞƌƐĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨϲϲtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚ
ǀĞŶƵĞ͘ŚƌŝƐĂŶĚŝŶĚLJǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽŵĂŬĞƚǁŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƌĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůŐŝǀĞƚŚĞŵ
ŵŽƌĞĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƉĂĐĞƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞLJĞĂƌĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂĨĨŽƌĚƚŚĞŵŵŽƌĞƉƌŝǀĂĐLJ͘
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ĐŽƉĞŽĨtŽƌŬ
ϭ͘ ĚĚŝŶŐĂƌŽŽĨƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĨƌŽŶƚƐƚŽŶĞĞŶƚƌLJ
Ϯ͘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƌͲLJĂƌĚƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚͲŝŶͲƉŽƌĐŚŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ
>ŽƚŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ
dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁŽƌŬĞdžĐĞĞĚƐƚŚĞ>ŽƚŽǀĞƌĂŐĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞZͲϭĂnjŽŶĞ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞŽĐĐƵƉŝĞƐ
Ϯ͕ϲϱϬƐƋĨƚ͕ŽƌϮϭ͘ϵϰйŽĨƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞϮ͕ϰϭϲƐƋĨƚŽƌϮϬйĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁŽƌŬĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚĂďŽǀĞǁŽƵůĚ
ĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůϯϬϲƐƋĨƚ͕ĨŽƌĂƚŽƚĂůƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŽĨϮ͕ϵϱϲƐƋĨƚ͕ŽƌϮϰ͘ϰϳй͘
džŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ĞƚďĂĐŬĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐ
ϭ͘ džŝƐƚŝŶŐDĂƐƚĞƌĞĚƌŽŽŵĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚͲLJĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬďLJϳ͛ͲϮ͕͟ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ
Ϯϱ͛ƐĞƚďĂĐŬƚŽϭϳ͛ͲϭϬ͘͟
Ϯ͘ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ'ĂƌĂŐĞĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŽŶƚŚĞ ĂƐƚƐŝĚĞͲLJĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬďLJϭϭ͕͟ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚϭϬ͛ƐĞƚďĂĐŬƚŽ
ϵ͛Ͳϭ͘͟
EĞŝƚŚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ĞƚďĂĐŬĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ
ϭ͘ EĞǁϭϬ͛džϯϬ͛ƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚͲŝŶͲƉŽƌĐŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉŽƌĐŚǁŝůůĞŶĐƌŽĂĐŚŽŶ
ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌͲLJĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬďLJϯ͛Ͳϱ͕͟ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚϯϭ͛;ϮϱйŽǀĞƌĂůůĚĞƉƚŚͿƐĞƚďĂĐŬƚŽϮϳ͛Ͳϳ͘͟
WĂŐĞϮŽĨϮ
dŚĞŶĞǁƌĞĂƌͲLJĂƌĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJŝƐŶŽƚŝŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂŶLJŶĞǁ
ĞŐƌĞŐŝŽƵƐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĂƚϲϮtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚǀĞ͕ŽƌƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĂƚϳϬtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚǀĞ͘
ƐLJŽƵŵĂLJŬŶŽǁ͕ďĞƚǁĞĞŶϲϲtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚǀĞĂŶĚϳϬtŽŽĚĐƌĞƐƚǀĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐƉĂƚŚƚŚĂƚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ
ĂŶĚďŝĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐƵƐĞƚŽŐĞƚƚŽƚŚĞ ĂƐƚ/ƚŚĂĐĂZĞĐtĂLJ͘dŚĞƉĂƚŚƉĂƐƐĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĨĞĞƚŽĨƚŚĞDŝůŶĞƌ͛ƐŚŽŵĞǁŝƚŚ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚůŝŶĞƐŽĨƐŝŐŚƚŝŶƚŽĂďĞĚƌŽŽŵĂŶĚůŝǀŝŶŐƌŽŽŵŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌ ƚŚƐŝĚĞ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ǁĞĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚͲ
ŝŶͲƉŽƌĐŚǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůĞdžƚĞŶĚŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƚǁŽƌŽŽŵƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂǀŝƐƵĂůďƵĨĨĞƌďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ĂĐĐĞƐƐƉĂƚŚ͘dŚĞƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚͲŝŶͲƉŽƌĐŚǁŝůůĂůƐŽĂůůŽǁƚŚĞDŝůŶĞƌ͛ƐƚŽĞŶũŽLJƚŚĞŝƌƌĞĂƌͲLJĂƌĚǀŝĞǁƐĨŽƌĂŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ
ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞLJĞĂƌ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽĚŝƐĐƵƐƐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝƚŚLJŽƵ͊/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞ
ĨĞĞůĨƌĞĞƚŽƌĞĂĐŚŽƵƚŵĞĂƚĞŵŝůLJΛĨŚĂůĂď͘ĐŽŵ͘dŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞĂƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƚƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĂƌĚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽŶϭϬͬϮϮͬϭϵ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĂůƐŽĂƚƚŚĞŽĂƌĚŽĨŽŶŝŶŐƉƉĞĂůƐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŽŶ
ϭϭͬϱͬϭϵ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
ŵŝůLJD͘WĞƚƌŝŶĂ͕Z
> Wн
&ŝƌĞŚŽƵƐĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ>Ăď͕W>>
LEGENDTax Parcels w Related Historic PropCity Owned PropertyHistoric DistrictAll Historic PropertiesParking Lots and GaragesBuildingsRailroadParcelBorderParkImpervious SurfacesPaved Walk or Surface or Private RoadPaved ParkingPaved Roadway or Public RoadUnpaved Drive or Walk or SurfaceWaterwayTown Hydro CenterlineTown ParcelsTown Hydro PolygonsTown ParksCity of Ithaca, NY - 750 Foot Buffer for Parcel - Final Tax Roll5,804Data contained on this map was provided or derived from data developed or compiled by the City of Ithaca, and is the best available to date. The originators do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information portrayed by the data.10/4/20191:Feet967.37Printed:
mw 10/11/2019
APPEAL # 3143 106-112 N. TIOGA STREET
Appeal of the Tompkins Center for History and Culture on behalf of the owner Tompkins County for
a Sign Variance from Section 272-6 B (2), Number and Size of Permitted Signs, of the Sign Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to install seven banner signs, two window signs, and one wall sign at the
property located at 106-112 N. Tioga Street. The proposed banner signs will be located at the second
story and spaced between the existing window openings. The applicant also proposes to install a wall
sign denoting the Tompkins Center for History and Culture above the main entrance and two window
signs on the front of the Ithaca College Art Gallery space. The Sign Ordinance permits commercial
uses to have one freestanding sign or two walls signs with a maximum square footage of 50 SF per
sign. The applicant proposes to install ten signs, (7 banners, 1 wall sign, and 2 window signs) which
will exceed the number of signs permitted by the ordinance.
The Sign Ordinance permits a commercial building to have a total sign area not to exceed 1.5 SF of
signage to every one linear foot of building frontage. The property has 96.75 linear feet of frontage,
allowing for a total of 145 SF of signage. The double-VLGHGEDQQHUVZLOOEH´ZLGHE\´ORQJ or
20 SF each, totaling 140 SF. The two window signs will be 10.8 SF each, totaling 21.6 SF, and the
wall sign will be an additional 14 SF. 7ZRVLJQVKDYHDOUHDG\EHHQSHUPLWWHGIRUWKHSURSHUW\ DQ´
E\´SURMHFWLQJLQIRUPDWLRQVLJQZKLFKLV6)DQGD6)ZLQGRZVLJQIRUWKH9LVLWRUV¶&HQWHU
for a total of 8.75 SF. The total square footage of the ten signs, when combined with the previously
permitted signs (8.75 SF), will amount to 184.35 SF of signage and will exceed the maximum allowable
amount of signage by 39.35 SF.
The Tompkins Center for History and Culture is considered a museum use and as such is permitted up
WRVTXDUHIHHWRIVLJQDJHLQFLGHQWDOWRWKDWXVH7KHH[LVWLQJ³7RPSNLQV&HQWHUIRU+LVWRU\DQG
&XOWXUH´ZLQGRZVLJQ ORFDWHGRYHUWKHIURQWHQWU\ DQGWKHWZRSURSRVHGUHDUHQWUDQFHZLQGRZVLJQV
are allowed under this provision. The square footage of these signs does not count toward the
maximum sign area allowed by the Sign Ordinance.
The property is located in the CBD-85 zoning district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
the Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that variances be granted before a sign permit is issued.
CITY OF ITHACA
Board of Zoning Appeals ʊ Notice of Appeal
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals WorksheetAppeal NumberBZA-3143Address: 106-112 N. Tioga StreetUse DistrictCBD-85Date:November 5, 2019ApplicantTompkins Center for History and CultureOwner: Tompkins CountyApplication Type:Sign VarianceSign Type Area Setback ProjectionOther RequirementsSign ADouble-Sided Banners7 - 20 SQ FT (10 SQ FT/side)18" Not IlluminatedSign BWindow Signs 2 - 10.8 SQ FT Not IlluminatedSign C (Permitted)*Projecting Sign 2.25 SQ FT 18" Not IlluminatedSign DWall Sign 14 SQ FT Not IlluminatedTompkins Center for History & Culture (Permitted & Installed)**Window Sign 11 SQ FT Not IlluminatedVisit Ithaca (Permitted & Installed)*Window Sign 6.5 SQ FT Not IlluminatedRear Entrance (Permitted)**Window Signs 2 - 2.5 SQ FT Not IlluminatedRegulations1 freestanding sign or 2 wall signs; up to 25 square feet of signage incidental to the museum use1.5 SQ FT for every linear foot of building frontageNote Non-conforming ConditionsDef. - 7 banners, 2 window signs, & 1 wall sgn exceed the allowable limit.***Def. - Proposed 184 SF of signage exceeds allowable limit.Notes:* Sign C and the Visit Ithaca sign meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and no variance is required.** A museum is allowed up to 25 square feet for signage that is incidental to the museum use. The Tompkins Center for History & Culture window sign (already installed) and the rear entrance signage falls within this category and is permited. No variance is required.*** Any commercial building in the CBD-85 district may have a total sign area not to exceed 1.5 square feet of signage to every one linear foot of building frontage (272-6B(2)). The Tompkins Center for History & Culture has 96.75 feet of frontage, which allows for 145 SF of signage. With the signs already permitted under the sign ordinance and those proposed under this variance, the building would have 184.35 SF of signage. Note: The signage considered incidental to a museum use (16 SF) is not counted toward this total amount.
$#%
_______________________________________________________________________________________
****************************Office use only*******************************
1. Ordinance Section(s) for the Appeal: Page 2
Zoning Ordinance Section being Appealed Sign Ordinance Section being Appealed
x §325- _________________________________ §272-6B(2)_______________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
x §325- _________________________________ §272- ___________________________________
2. Application of SEQR determination: __ Type 1 __ Type 2 _X_ Unlisted
3. Environmental Assessment form used:
__X_ Short Environmental Assessment Form
_ ___ Long Environmental Form
_____ Not Applicable
_____ Completed by the Planning Division at preliminary hearing for SPR
4. A previous appeal has,has not, been made for this proposal:
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
Appeal No. _________, dated _____________
5. Notes or Special Conditions:
___________________________________________________________________
9
dŚĞdŽŵƉŬŝŶƐĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞ
ϭϭϬE͘dŝŽŐĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚ
/ƚŚĂĐĂ͕EzϭϰϴϱϬ
ĞĂƌWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJKǁŶĞƌ͕
tĞĂƌĞǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽŝŶĨŽƌŵLJŽƵŽĨĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂƐŝŐŶǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞĂƚdŚĞdŽŵƉŬŝŶƐĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJ
ĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞ͕ůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϭϬϲͲϭϭϮE͘dŝŽŐĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕/ƚŚĂĐĂEzϭϰϴϱϬ͘dŚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐϯƚLJƉĞƐ
ŽĨĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌƐŝŐŶĂŐĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞǁŽƌŬŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ͗
ĂŶŶĞƌƐ͗ϳĚŽƵďůĞͲƐŝĚĞĚďĂŶŶĞƌƐĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϭϴ͟džϴϬ͟ŽŶƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĨůŽŽƌůĞǀĞů͘ϰŽĨƚŚĞďĂŶŶĞƌƐĂƌĞ
ůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞ/ƚŚĂĐĂŽůůĞŐĞƌƚ'ĂůůĞƌLJ͕ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͘ϯĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůďĂŶŶĞƌƐ
ĂƌĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞsŝƐŝƚ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͊>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚĂŐĂŝŶƐƉĂĐĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͘dŚĞ
ďĂŶŶĞƌĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞĐŽůŽƌƐ͕ǁŝƚŚƚĞdžƚ͕ƚŚĂƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞdŽŵƉŬŝŶƐĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞ
ůŽŐŽ͘dĞdžƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƉŚƌĂƐĞƐůŝŬĞ͞ džƉůŽƌĞŽƵƌŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͕͟͞/ŵĂŐŝŶĞKƵƌWŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕͟ĂŶĚ͞ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŶŐKƵƌ
WĂƐƚ͘͟ĂŶŶĞƌƐĂƌĞŵŽƵŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚďůĂĐŬďĂŶŶĞƌŵŽƵŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨĂĕĂĚĞ͘
tŝŶĚŽǁ'ƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ͗dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁŝŶĚŽǁŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐĂƌĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌǁŝŶĚŽǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ/ƚŚĂĐĂŽůůĞŐĞƌƚ
'ĂůůĞƌLJ͘
dŽŵƉŬŝŶƐĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞdLJƉĞ͗ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϭϬ͟ŚŝŐŚůĞƚƚĞƌƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
ƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĂŶĚƐĞĐŽŶĚĨůŽŽƌƐŽĨd,͘dŚĞƚĞdžƚƐĂLJƐ͞dŽŵƉŬŝŶƐĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞ͕͟ĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞ
ĞǀĞŶůLJƐƉĂĐĞĚĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞϮϮ͛ůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĂƚƌŝƵŵ͘
/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐŝŐŶĂŐĞĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ƚŚĞdŽŵƉŬŝŶƐĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞŝƐŝŶƐƚĂůůŝŶŐƚǁŽ
ƐŝŐŶƐƚŚĂƚĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͘dŚĞƚǁŽƐŝŐŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂďůƵĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
ƐŝŐŶǁŝƚŚĂŶ͞ŝ͕͟ĂŶĚǀŝŶLJů͞sŝƐŝƚ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͊͟ŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌǁŝŶĚŽǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ
sŝƐŝƚ/ƚŚĂĐĂ͊ƌĞƚĂŝůƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƐǁŝůůďĞŵŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌŽĨƚŚĞŐůĂƐƐ͘
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐŝŐŶĂŐĞŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚĂƚĞƐĂƐŝŐŶǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐŝŐŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŝƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĂůůŽǁĞĚƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ^ŝŐŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘dŚĞdŽŵƉŬŝŶƐ
ĞŶƚĞƌĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJĂŶĚƵůƚƵƌĞŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐƚŚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞďĞŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŽŝŵƉƌŽǀĞǁĂLJĨŝŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌŽƵƌŶĞǁ
ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞƌĞĂĐŚŽƵƚƚŽĞŶũĂŵŝŶ^ĂŶĚďĞƌŐ͕ƚŚĞ džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌŽĨdŚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJ
ĞŶƚĞƌŝŶdŽŵƉŬŝŶƐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůLJ͕ƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽĂƌĚZĞǀŝĞǁDĞĞƚŝŶŐǁŝůůŽĐĐƵƌŽŶKĐƚŽďĞƌ
ϮϮŶĚ͕ϮϬϭϵ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŽĂƌĚŽĨŽŶŝŶŐƉƉĞĂůƐǁŝůůŵĞĞƚŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϱƚŚ͕ϮϬϭϵƚŽŵĂŬĞĂĨŝŶĂů
ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJLJŽƵƌƐ͕
ĞŶũĂŵŝŶ^ĂŶĚďĞƌŐ
LEGENDTax Parcels w Related Historic PropCity Owned PropertyHistoric DistrictAll Historic PropertiesParking Lots and GaragesBuildingsRailroadParcelBorderParkImpervious SurfacesPaved Walk or Surface or Private RoadPaved ParkingPaved Roadway or Public RoadUnpaved Drive or Walk or SurfaceWaterwayCity of Ithaca, NY - 750 Foot Buffer for Parcel - Final Tax Roll5,804Data contained on this map was provided or derived from data developed or compiled by the City of Ithaca, and is the best available to date. The originators do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information portrayed by the data.10/11/20191:Feet967.37Printed: