Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-15 P&D Board - Project Review Commmittee Meeting AgendaCITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Econ. Development – 607-274-6550 | Community Development/IURA – 607-274- 6559 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org E-Mail: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO:City of Ithaca Project Review Committee (Planning &Development Board) FROM:Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner DATE:July 16,2015 SUBJECT:Agenda for Project Review Committee Meeting:T UESDAY,JULY 21,2015 Meeting scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m.in Common Council Chambers,City Hall,108 E.Green St.,Ithaca.Please call Charles Pyott at 2746550,if you cannot attend or you require additional information. 9:30 Project:Cascadilla Creek Wall,Railing,&Street improvements Location:Between Cayuga and Tioga Streets Project Description:This is a City project.The project manager seeks design guidance from the Project Review Committee. 9:45 Project:State Street Triangle Project Location:301 E.State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd. Applicant:Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Declaration of Lead Agency &CEQR Discussion Project Description:The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759acre site with an 11story,116’tall, 288,845GSF,mixeduse building.The building will have approximately 12,341 SF of new retail space on the ground floor,2,029 of which is anticipated to be a restaurant.Upper floors will have a mix of unit types (from 1bedroom/1bath to 5bedroom/4bath)for a total of 240 units with approximately 620 bedrooms. The targeted market is primarily college students.The ground level of the building includes a loading/delivery/trash area with vehicular access provided from N.Aurora Street.35 parking spaces will be eliminated no onsite parking is proposed.The project is in the CDB120 Zoning District.This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B.(1)(h)[4],(k) and (n),and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),§617.4 (6.)(iv)and (11)),and is subject to environmental review. 10:00 Project:Educational Building Location:209215 Dryden Rd. Applicant:Trowbidge Wolf Michaels for 209215 Dryden Associates,LLC Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Declaration of Lead Agency &CEQR Discussion Project Description:The applicant proposes to build a sixstory/80 foot tall education and office building on the 12,301SF project site.The building will have a footprint of 10,180 SF and a GFA of 76,210.The building will house the Cornell Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program,which will be a tenant of the building;so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property.The building will include classrooms,meeting rooms,staff and faculty offices,and a large atrium for public assembly and to provide streetlevel active use.The project site consists of four tax parcels (#64.103,#64.104,#64.105,and #64.106)and will require consolidation.The building is in the MU2 Zoning District and will require Design Review.This project is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B.(1)(n),and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA),§617.4 (6.)(11),and is subject to environmental review. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 1 of 3 10:20 Project:Four MultiFamily Dwellings “Pocket Neighborhood” Location:215221 Spencer St. Applicant:Noah Demarest for PPM Homes Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Public Hearing and Review of FEAF,Parts 2 &3 Project Description:The applicant proposes to build a new multifamily “pocket neighborhood”on a hillside site between W.Spencer St.and W.Cayuga St.The project will include four buildings,each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units overall).A 12car parking area is proposed with access off of W. Cayuga Street.Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces that connect through the site.The project also includes lighting,retaining walls,and landscaping.The project is in the R 3b Zoning District and requires a variance for parking.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review. 10:40 Project:Retail Building Location:Ithaca Plaza Applicant:Marx Realty &Improvement Co.,Inc. Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Public Hearing,Determination of Environmental Significance,& Recommendation to BZA Project Description:Project Description:The applicant proposes to construct a onestory 3,400SF retail building with 49 parking spaces and associated landscaping,walkways,and other site improvements.The 6.1acre project site contains an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces.The project includes relocation of the existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway.The project is in the SW2 Zoning District,which allows a maximum building setback of 34 feet from the curbline.The project requires an Area Variance for the proposed 40’setback.The applicant has proposed a 4’tall architectural wall along a portion of the frontage.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review. 10:50 Project:Building &Vehicle Display Expansion Location:308318 Elmira Rd. Applicant:Schickel Architecture for Maguire Family Enterprises Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Determination of Environmental Significance &Recommendation to BZA Project Description:The applicant proposes to construct a 1,100SF addition to the east side of the existing building,reconfigure the vehicle display and associated parking layout,including shifting the existing entrance 65 feet to the northeast,add 20 parking spaces,and install other site improvements including landscaping,lighting,and signage.The applicant is proposing 5%internal landscaping 12%is required. The applicant is requesting to build an architectural wall/fence as an alternative to the requirement in the Southwest Area Design Guidelines that a minimum of 35%of a lot’s street frontage should be occupied by building mass.In accordance with the guidelines,the Planning Board may allow a portion,not to exceed a third of the required 35%building frontage,to be occupied by an integrated architectural wall.The project occupies two tax parcels and requires parcel consolidation,as well as an Area Variance for exceeding the maximum 30 foot front yard setback in the SW2 Zoning District.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 2 of 3 11:10 Project:Two Duplexes (revised from previous submission) Location:804 E.State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd. Applicant:Tom Schickel for Demos/Johnny,LLC Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Public Hearing,Determination of Environmental Significance,and Consideration of Preliminary &Final Approval Project Description:The applicant proposes to construct two duplexes (each with two 3bedroom apartments),a 16space gravel parking area,and associated site improvements.Site access is from the existing driveway on Blair Street.Site preparation will require removal of existing garage,all paving,and fencing on the development site.The project requires consolidation of five existing tax parcels:#83.3 2 (804 E.State St.),containing a duplex;#83.3 3,currently used as a parking lot;#68.8.9,containing the existing garage;#83.3 9 (806 E.State St.)and #83.3 8 (808 E.State St.)containing identical existing duplexes.The project is in the CR2 Zoning District and is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District.This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review. 11:20 Project:Tompkins Financial Headquarters Location:118 &119 E.Seneca St. Applicant:Trowbridge Wolf Michaels,LLP for Tompkins Trust Company Anticipated Board Action(s)in July:Consideration of Final Approval for DriveThrough Project Description:The applicant proposes to construct a seven (7)story,110,000SF office building as a new corporate headquarters at 118 E.Seneca St.,and to relocate the existing drivethrough teller to the groundfloor parking area of 119 E.Seneca Street.The new building will have a groundfloor footprint of approximately 6,600 SF (66’x 100’)and will include retail services,building core,and other amenities related to the building.There will be 2025 parking spaces accommodated on site to the north of the groundfloor footprint and under the building overhang.Each floor plate above the ground floor will be 16,300 SF.The front of the building will be set back several feet from the street line to align with the Hilton Garden Inn.119 E.Seneca Street will include a new 985SF drivethrough teller building.Existing parking and drive aisles will be modified to create a teller window driveup lane,a vacuumactuated driveup teller station,and a throughlane for traffic.In addition to the drive lane associated with the teller stations,a new ATM will be added to the site.Both sites are in the CBD100 Zoning District.This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B.(1)(h)[4]and (n),and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),§617.4 (6.)(iv),for which environmental review is complete. ACCESSING ONLINE DOCUMENTS SitePlan Review &Subdivision ApplicationDocuments (&Related Materials) SitePlan Review applicationdocumentsare accessible electronically via the“Document Center”on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Planning & Development”>“Site Plan Review Project Applications,”andin the relevantyear/month folder.Subdivision applicationmaterialscan be similarlylocated,but in the “Subdivision Applications”folder. ZoningAppeals ZoningAppeals are accessible electronically via the “Document Center”on theCity web site (www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Board ofZoning Appeals”>“Zoning Appeal Applications,”andin the relevant year’sfolder. 11:30 Zoning Appeals #2969,222 Elmira Rd.,Area Variance #2988,506 S.Cayuga St.,Parking Variance #2989,308318 Elmira Rd.,Area Variance #2990,105108 Madison St.,Area Variance #2991,416418 E.State St,Parking Variance #2992,308318 Elmira Rd.,Sign Variance 11:45 Adjournment cc:Mayor Svante Myrick &Common Council Dr.Luvelle Brown,Superintendent,ICSD Jay Franklin,Tompkins County Assessment “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 3 of 3 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 1 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Pile foundation will be used. Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? Yes No Specific land forms (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 2 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water body. Yes No Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 3 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Project will require discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 4 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Stormwater Plan will be reviewed by the City Stormwater Management Officer. Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts. Need more information on ventilation and other air-handling systems Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 5 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 6 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Highly visible downtown location the building will have four prominent façades. Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Project is located in close proximity to the Downtown Ithaca National Register Historic District. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 7 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? Yes No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 8 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts: The project proposes to add 640 residents to the downtown area. No parking is proposed. Cumulative impacts of multiple concurrent construction projects. See Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 9 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Pile driving and other construction noise. See Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 10 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Phase 1 has been submitted see Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. +/- 640 new residents in downtown. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Yes No Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Housing & Retail 301 E. State St./M.L.K, Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 6/24/15 11 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.) Other impacts (if any): Need more information about utility capacity and any needed upgrades Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown — If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 — Page 1 of 6 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part III Project Name:301 E.State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd.State Street Triangle Project Date Created:7/14/15 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759acre site with an 11story 116’tall,288,845 GSF mixeduse building.The building will have approximately 12,341 SF of new retail space on the ground floor,2,029 of which is anticipated to be a restaurant.Upper floors will have a mix of unit types (from 1bedroom/1 bath to 5bedroom/4 bath)for a total of 240 units with approximately 620 bedrooms.The targeted market is primarily college students.The ground level of the building includes a loading/delivery/trash area with vehicular access provided from N.Aurora Street.35 parking spaces will be eliminated no onsite parking is proposed.The project is in the CDB 120 Zoning District.This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B.(1)(h)[4],(k)and (n),and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),§617.4 (6.)(iv),and (11)and requires environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND The project site is located in the downtown core,in a densely developed mixed use environment. Construction is expected to last for approximately eight months. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report,dated June 2015,and prepared by Empire Geo Services,Inc.The report makes the following 5 recommendations pertaining to foundation work: 1) Considering the extensive depth and variability of the existing fill,and the substantial loads associated with the proposed structure,Empire recommends the building be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of either driven steel piles or drilled shafts seated on or within the shale bedrock at depth.As noted previously,we understand that drilled shafts have been identified as the preferred foundation option. 2) Assuming that fill materials throughout the site are similar to that found in the test borings,consideration may be given to leaving the fill in place beneath new building floor slabs.However,the owner must accept some risk of floor slab settlement under this scenario.As a minimum,the subgrades should be proofrolled to identify any localized soft areas which should be investigated and stabilized as necessary,and at least 24 inches of structural fill should be provided beneath the slab (we expect that this would for the most part be accomplished through excavation backfill of pile caps,grade beams and deeper foundation elements). 3) It is anticipated that soils which are excavated for foundation construction will consist largely of existing fill soils.As the existing fill is variable in composition and to some extent comprised of unsuitable materials,we recommend that the fill be wasted and that an imported granular fill be used for all fill and backfill work around new building foundations. Page 2 of 6 4) At the time of investigation,groundwater levels were found below the depths likely to impact on design and construction of pile caps,grade beams,etc.Should zones of temporarily trapped or perched water be encountered in shallow excavations,it is expected that standard sump and pump methods will be adequate for dewatering purposes.However,it should be understood that groundwater will be an important consideration in drilled shaft construction,rendering installation procedures more difficult;appropriate measures will need to be implemented to dewater the excavations and/or maintain borehole stability. 5) Lastly,while environmental considerations were outside the scope ofthis investigation, we point out that possible petroleum odors were noted in the 2022 foot depth interval at boreholes B 1 and B2.These informal observations are referenced on the subsurface logs;no attempt has been made to quantify the severity or extent of contamination,if any.Further investigation in this regard may be prudent,to the extent it may impact on handling and disposal of excavated soils/pumped groundwater during construction. The report also anticipates the need for temporary excavation bracing to protect contiguous infrastructure and utilities. Information needed: Confirmation that drilled piles (as opposed to driven piles)will be used Details about temporary bracing IMPACT ON WATER No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON DRAINAGE The project is within 100 Feet of Six Mile Creek.More information is needed to understand stormwater management to insure it does not affect the creek. No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON AIR No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON PLANTS &ANIMALS No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project site is extremely prominentall four facades of the building will be visible.In addition –the building as proposed will be the tallest in the downtown.The Lead Agency has expressed concerns about the size,height and massing of the building as follows: Page 3 of 6 Concern with the building height,especially as is no setback to allow light to reach the street –need shadow study. Too massive for the site needs to be broken down into smaller pieces. Concern that the massing would create a visual canyonlike effect Need visual renderings from a human perspective,from lower elevations Need better understanding of street level experience on Green Street IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES The project site is on E.State Street in the block preceding the eastern end of the Commons,the City’s retail,tourism,and entertainment center.The project site is in close proximity to the Downtown Ithaca National Historic District.Its boundary comprises the building on the northeast corner of Aurora and E.State Street,directly north of the project site,and the buildings along the north side of The Commons,northwest of the Project Site.The Ithaca Downtown Historic District includes commercial and mixeduse buildings,which are predominantly made of brick. The proposed building occupies a large prominent parcel,and,as proposed is designed to the maximum height allowed.Because of its scale and proximity to the historic district,its design, including massing,height,architectural expression and building materials have the potential to significantly impact the character,feeling and experience of the district.The applicant must demonstrate how the project responds sympathetically to the district. The applicant has proposed the following features which make the sympathetic to the historic district: No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The City Transportation Engineer has reviewed the Transportation Assessment prepared by SRF and dated June 11,2015.He has submitted the following comments: Existing Conditions:2nd paragraph:Rt 79 through the downtown (actually from Rt 13 to I81) has been upgraded from an urban minor arterial to a principal arterial. Proposed Development:Trip Generation:The report basis the residential trip generation on the Collegetown Terrace Apartment Project.The Collegetown Terrace Apartment Project,as a condition of site plan approval,provides shuttle service to Cornell University on fairly frequent headways (I think every half an hour,though I’m not sure).Will the State Street Triangle project be committing to running shuttle service to campus?Additionally,if a local trip generation study is going to be used as the basis for this project,the study should be coordinated with the Engineering Office,and the report should be submitted as part of the analysis. Page 4 of 6 Moreover,if a local trip generation study is going to be used from an existing development, and if the study is actually only measuring vehicular trips,then it does not make sense to further discount the trip generation with transit,ped/bike,or carpool credits.These reductions would already be accounted for in the study itself.Also,for a transit reduction,it doesn’t make sense to me to use a 50%reduction,if within the City approximately 10%of people use transit for commuting purposes.While it may be true that 71%of TCAT fares are Cornell related,there is also a greater density of ridership on campus than across the City.It might be more appropriate to look at what percentage of boardings at the Green,Seneca and Aurora (temporarily relocated to East State/MLK)bus stops are related to Cornell University or Ithaca College.The non residential components of the project have not been accounted for in the trip generation analysis. I’m having a hard time believing that 230 apartments (600 bedrooms),a restaurant,and over 10,000 sf of retail space will only generate 11 entering trips in the PM peak hour,or any of the other proposed traffic volumes.Once we have agreement on the trip generation for this project,we can move on to the other steps in a transportation impact study,but it doesn’t make sense to move on to other topics until we have better agreement on this one. The applicant must address these comments. The project is in close proximity to public transportation and is walkable from many points within the city.However,due to the significant increase in residential density (more than 5%in the downtown area)as well as the additional commercial retail traffic,the existing transportation facilities,including pedestrian facilities,public parking,bike facilities,and public transportation, likely lack sufficient capacity.More information is needed as outlined in Impacts to Neighborhood and Community Character to determine potentially significant impacts. The Lead Agency has required,and the applicant has agreed,to develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan.At a minimum,the plan should provide an inventory of existing of projected transportation patterns and modes,anticipated needs and how they will be accommodated. IMPACT ON ENERGY No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS The project site is in the downtown core.Adjacent residents and businesses will be affected by the cumulative impacts of numerous simultaneous construction projects. Construction impacts:more information is needed about foundation construction –duration and type. Limit of noise producing construction activities. Page 5 of 6 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report dated June 2015 and prepared by Empire Geo Services Inc.The report noted the following: Lastly,while environmental considerations were outside the scope of this investigation,we point out that possible petroleum odors were noted in the 2022 foot depth interval at boreholes B1 and B2.These informal observations are referenced on the subsurface logs;no attempt has been made to quantify the severity or extent of contamination,if any.Further investigation in this regard may be prudent,to the extent it may impact on handling and disposal of excavated soils/pumped groundwater during construction. The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)dated May 2015 and a cover letter dated May 7,2015 both prepared by Barton and Loguidice (B&L). The report identified an historic filling station with associated underground storage tanks,as well as the known petroleum contamination in the subsurface soil (approximately 1819 feet below grade),as Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs). The cover letter explains the following: B&L reported the contamination to the NYSDEC (Spill No.1202183),and the spill was closed following review of the laboratory results,as there were no direct pathways for exposure to the contamination at the time.NYSDEC noted that future site development may require the handling and disposal of impacted soils,as well as removal and disposal of any remaining UST components. B&L spoke with Mr.Kevin Kemp,NYSDEC Region 7 Spill Engineer,during preparation of the Phase I ESA.Mr.Kemp confirmed that NYSDEC has only limited concern regarding the contamination on the target property parcel because of the depth of contamination,as well as because the spill file has already been closed.Mr.Kemp stated that NYSDEC would require proper handling and disposal of any contaminated soils that are encountered or excavated as part of the proposed construction work; however,NYSDEC would not require the owner to excavate all contaminated soils on the property,but rather only the contaminated soil that must be excavated during the course of normal construction.This process would require engineering oversight during excavation of soils below 15 feet,as the soils would need to be screened for contamination.Soils identified as contaminated would need to be staged on polyethylene sheeting,sampled,and disposed of at a landfill.All soils identified as clean could be reused as fill onsite or hauled off site. NYSDEC would expect that engineering controls be used during construction of the proposed building to limit the potential for soil vapor intrusion into occupied spaces if petroleum contaminated soils remain in place below the building footprint.Examples of engineering controls available for a relatively low cost include ventilation,use of vapor barrier,or a subslab depressurization system,depending on the design of the building and parking garage. Page 6 of 6 The Lead Agency recognizes that any specification for soil handling and disposal as well as anything else related to the existing contaminated soil,is under the jurisdiction of NYSDEC and possibly NYS Department of Health.The applicant is required to work with those agencies to address any issues therefore,the project will not create any adverse impacts to public health related to the contamination or its remediation. IMPACT ON GROWTH &CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5%of resident human population.(+/620 new residents in downtown5%of 620 =12,400). Potential issues: Adequacy of pedestrian facilities contiguous to site Adequacy of public transportation to accommodate the volume and needs of residents Adequacy of proximate services to serve residents Utility capacity analysis Information needed: TCAT student travel patterns (hours and volume) TCAT service and capacity at downtown bus stops Building program and services provided to residents (are meals and transportation services included/supervision?/curfews?) Inventory of proximate services Information on location and size of exiting and required utilities and plans for extension or upgrades if needed. No impact anticipated. Prepared by:Lisa Nicholas City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 1 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Pile foundation will be used. Need more information about it. Need geotechnical study. Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? Yes No Specific land forms (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 2 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water body. Yes No Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 3 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Project will require discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 4 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Project will be reviewed by City Stormwater Management Officer. Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts. Need more information on ventilation and other air-handling systems Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 5 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 6 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts (if any Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 7 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? Yes No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 8 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Pedestrian & Bike Facilities Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts: Cumulative impacts of multiple concurrent construction projects and increase in density. Will require a Transportation Demand Management Plan See Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 9 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Pile driving and other construction noise. See Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 10 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Need Phase 1. Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Yes No Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Educational Building 209-215 Dryden Rd. Date Created: 7/15/15 11 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.) Other impacts (if any): Need more information about utility capacity and any needed upgrades. Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown — If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 — 7/17/2015 Page 1 of 3 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part III Project Name:Educational Building –209215 Dryden Road Date Created:7/15/15 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to build a sixstory/80foot tall education and office building on the 12,301 SF project site.The building will have a footprint of 10,180 SF and a GFA of 76,210.The building will house the Cornell Johnson School of Management Executive Education Program,which will be a tenant of the building;so the building and site will therefore remain a taxable property.The building will include classrooms,meeting rooms,staff and faculty offices,and a large atrium for public assembly and to provide streetlevel active use.The project site consists of four tax parcels (#64.103,#64.104,#64.105,and #64.106)and will require consolidation.The building is in the MU2 Zoning District and will require Design Review.This project is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B.(1)(n),and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA),§617.4 (6.)(11),and is subject to environmental review. The following items are needed to determine any potential impacts: Phase 1 ESA or equivalent Geotechnical report or equivalent including information about Demolition Planwith limits of disturbance Utility plan/capacity analysis Documentation that interior lighting will not spill into adjacent residences Building materials and samples Utility capacity analysis and any need upgrades IMPACT ON LAND TBD IMPACT ON WATER IMPACT ON DRAINAGE TBD IMPACT ON AIR TBD IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 7/17/2015 Page 2 of 3 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES TBD IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The applicant does not anticipate that the project will significantly impact transportation patterns. The application states: Cornell faculty and staff in the existing Executive Education Program currently park at A Lot and in campus parking garages and then take the bus to their office.Attendees of the Executive Education Program travel to Cornell from out of town and stay at the Statler Hotel.Most do not have a car while in Ithaca.Attendees take the bus or walk to class at Sage Hall.Relocating the program to the Collegetown location is not expected to have any impact on transportation and travel patterns.Faculty,staff and attendees will continue to take the bus or walk to the facility. While it is reasonable to assume that single occupancy vehicle traffic will not increase,the number of pedestrians would increase significantlyin an area where pedestrian facilities are already strained.The Application states that the project will have capacity for 600 persons –with 70 %(420) initial occupancy expected. The application states the following: Executive Education programs are conducted year round and have the highest levels of utilization when Cornell is not in session,such as in January and during the summer months. Evening programs could include activities such as guest speakers and company recruitment events.Other Cornell departments are expected to utilize the space as well.On occasion,there could be events open to the public. We need more information about programming and volume/scale.How many people will be moving in and out of the building on a daily basis?When?Are the classes all day?How many to a class and how many classes run concurrently?What is the capacity for events? IMPACT ON ENERGY No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS Construction impacts 7/17/2015 Page 3 of 3 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH TBD IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUMITY OR NIEGHBOORHOOD TBD Prepared by:Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 1 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Need more information about foundation work. Need geotechnical study. Site is steeply sloped with a high risk of erosion during construction. Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? Yes No Specific land forms (if any): Are there rock outcroppings or exposed bedrock on the site? Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 2 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water body. Yes No Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 3 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Project will require discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 4 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion (steeply sloped site). Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Project will be reviewed by City Stormwater Management Officer. Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 5 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Need more information about vegetation removal. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 6 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Need more visual information showing the project in relationship to the surrounding residential context. Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 7 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? Yes No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 8 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 9 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen. Yes No Other impacts (if any): construction Impacts. See Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 10 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Need Phase 1. Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Requires Area Variance. Yes No Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Four Multi-Family Dwellings 215-221 Spencer St. Date Created: 7/14/15 11 of 11 7/17/2015 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.) Other impacts (if any): Need more visual information showing the project in relationship to the surrounding residential context. Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown — If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 — City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts (if any): A portion of the project is in the 100 year floodplain Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? Yes No Specific land forms (if any): Yes No 1 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water body. Yes No Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 2 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Project will require discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts (if any): A portion of the project is in the 100 year floodplain Yes No 3 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Project requires a Basic SWPPP Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts – there will be a waiting period between grading and construction to allow for soil consolidation Yes No 4 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Vegetation to be removed along drainage ditch. Yes No 5 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 6 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? Yes No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 7 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts: Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 8 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction impacts only Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No 9 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Requires an Area Variance Yes No Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No 10 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 -Project Impacts Project Name: 222 Elmira Road – Retail Expansion Date Created: 7-15-15 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.) Other impacts (if any): Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown — If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 — 11 of 11 7/17/2015 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part III Project Name:Retail Expansion –222 Elmira Road Date Created:71515 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a onestory 3,400SF retail building with 49 parking spaces and associated landscaping,walkways,and other site improvements.The 6.1acre project site contains an existing retail mall with 258 parking spaces.The project includes relocation of the existing driveway to align with Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway.The project is in the SW2 Zoning District, which allows a maximum building setback of 34 feet from the curbline.The project requires Area Variances for the proposed 40’setback,parking and width of building at street front.The applicant has proposed a 4’tall architectural wall along a portion of the frontage.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND The project site is in the in an area of dense commercial development.Much of the site is currently paved,however the realignment of the entrance/driveway with Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway requires the removal of with a small amount of vegetation contiguous to the drainage ditch. The project site is also in the 100 year floodplain –which will require raising the base elevation by two to three feet on portions of the site (see Grading and Drainage Plan (C104)dated 63015. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report dated January 2015 and prepared by Empire Geo Services Inc.The report concludes the following: Depth to groundwater is less than 3 feet in some locations Grade increases will cause soil consolidation –therefore grading should be done well in advance of construction to allow adequate time for consolidation Conventional spread foundation is not recommended –either a pile or mat foundation are acceptable alternatives The potential for erosion is a concern due to the proximity to the drainage ditch combined with vegetation removal and the need to raise grades and allow time for soil consolidation before construction.Erosion and sedimentation controls to address these specific concerns,should be designed,implemented and maintained throughout the construction period to prevent sediments from entering the stream. The project requires a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,which will be developed to direct runoff away from the ditch.However,the Lead Agency requires and the applicant has agreed to provide a vegetative buffer along between the edge of pavement and the ditch to enhance stream protection. 7/17/2015 Page 1 of 3 IMPACT ON WATER No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON DRAINAGE See Impact on Land No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON AIR The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report dated January 2015 and prepared by Empire Geo Services Inc.The report concludes the necessary grade increases will cause soil consolidation – therefore grading should be done well in advance of construction to allow adequate time for consolidation.The applicant should implement the following dust control measures as needed to address the dust during construction: Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust. Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site. Reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils. Keeping roads clear of dust and debris. Requiring trucks to be covered. Prohibiting burning of debris on site. No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS The project site is in the in an area of dense commercial development.Much of the site is currently paved,however the realignment of the entrance/driveway with Fairgrounds Memorial Parkway requires the removal of with a small amount of vegetation contiguous to the drainage ditch.The project requires a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,which will be developed to direct runoff away from the ditch.However,the Lead Agency requires and the applicant has agreed to provide a vegetative buffer along between the edge of pavement and the ditch to enhance stream protection. No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION No Impact anticipated 7/17/2015 Page 2 of 3 IMPACT ON ENERGY No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH No Impact anticipated IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUMITY OR NIEGHBOORHOOD The project requires an Area Variances for deficiencies in building width at street front,building setback form curb and parking location.To address these deficiencies the applicant is proposing a four foot tall masonry wall and associated landscaping along a portion of the street frontage.The Lead Agency finds that the wall and landscaping adequately address the deviancies and make the project more attractive. No Impact anticipated Prepared by:Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner 7/17/2015 Page 3 of 3 City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 1 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project site? Yes No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts (if any) Construction Impacts – See Part 3 Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? Yes No Specific land forms (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 2 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water body. Yes No Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 3 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Project will require discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 4 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Steeply sloped site. Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts only. See Part 3. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 5 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts (if any Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 6 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts (if any): The project site is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District. See Part 3. Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts (if any): The project site is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District. See Part 3. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 7 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? Yes No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 8 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts: Potential construction impacts Applicant has submitted information regarding constructing staging, deliveries, contractor parking, and sidewalk and road closures Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 9 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Construction Impacts. Project is in a residential area. Noise-producing construction activities should be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Monday-Saturday. Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 10 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No Other impacts (if any): A Phase 1 ESA has not been performed for the site. There is no known contamination. . Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Yes No Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: Two Duplexes 804 E. State St. Date Created: 6/1/15, Updated 7-15-15 11 of 11 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.) Other impacts (if any): Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown — If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 — Page 1 of 3 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Part III Project Name:Two Duplexes 804 E.State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd. Date Created:6/1/15,updated by staff on 7/13/15 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct two duplexes (each with two 3bedroom apartments),a 16 space gravel parking area,and associated site improvements.Vehicular access is via the existing driveway on Blair Street.Dedicated pedestrian site access to Blair Street will be provided via the existing driveway.Site preparation will require removal of existing garage,all paving,and fencing on the development site.The project requires consolidation of six existing tax parcels :#83.3 2 (804 E.State St.),containing a duplex;#83.3 3 (112 Blair St.),currently used as a parking lot;#68.8.9, containing the existing garage;#83.3 9 (806 E.State St.);#83.38 (808 E.State St.),containing identical existing duplexes;and a 683SF portion of an impacted vacant lot to the north.The project is in the CR2 Zoning District and is contiguous on its western and northern boundaries to the East Hill Historic District.This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and the State Environmental Quality Review Act,and is subject to environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND The project will require excavation for building foundations.A geotechnical report has not been done for this project however foundation work done in the recent past for three houses on the property provides adequate information.The applicant anticipates the soil is 23 feet deep underlain with breakable shale which will be removed with a backhoe to the necessary depth. The portion of the site that contains the new buildings is not steeply sloped however,other parts of the site are sloped over 10%.When submitted,the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be reviewed by the City Stormwater Management Officer. IMPACT ON WATER No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON DRAINAGE The portion of the site that contains the new buildings is not steeply sloped however;other parts of the site are sloped over 10%.When submitted,the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be reviewed by the City Stormwater Management Officer. No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON AIR The project site is in a residential area however,the construction period is expected to be relatively short,as the buildings are modular. Page 2 of 3 The impacts of airborne dust could have a negative impact during the construction period.The excavation and the preparation of foundations can also create the potential for increased dust and dirt particles in the air.The applicant has agreed to employ the following applicable dust control measures as appropriate: Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust. Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site.Re seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils. Keeping roads clear of dust and debris. Requiring trucks to be covered. Prohibiting burning of debris on site. No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON PLANTS &ANIMALS No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project is site is contiguous to the East Hill Historic District.The proposed buildings are in the rear of the site though it is unclear how visible they would be from points in the Historic District or the adjacent neighborhood.The applicant has provided a line drawing of the view from the rear yards of 109 and 111 Orchard Place (within the Historic District)to illustrate how the site developments relates to the Historic District. The applicant has taken the following steps to reduce impacts on the Historic District: Reduced the scale of the project from 3 to 2 buildings. Removed the originallyproposed basement level parking which reduced the height of the building by 2 3 feet. Incorporated a vegetative buffer at the northern boundary of the site. Installation of foundation plantings for the duplexes at 806 E.State Street. Parging and painting the currently exposed foundations of the duplexes at 806 E.State Street. The Lead Agency requests (and the applicant has agreed)to the following steps,in addition to those items listed above: Installation of a vegetative buffer along the western boundary contiguous to the Historic District. Installation of landscape establishment plan including temporary irrigation. Submission of details on soil improvements for proposed planting areas,particularly in compacted areas. Replacement of any unhealthy/dying plantings throughout the site. Page 3 of 3 Issues for discussion: Lack of architectural interest. Dumpster and recycling enclosure. IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES See Impact on Aesthetic Resources above. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Issues: Pedestrian circulation safety and comfort of existing and proposed pedestrian amenities. Accommodation for bicycles. IMPACT ON ENERGY No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE &ODORS The project is in a densely developed area in a residential neighborhood however the construction period is expected to be relatively brief –as the buildings are modular.Construction activities will temporarily produce noise that will affect residents in the immediate area.The Lead Agency requires and the applicant has agreed that noiseproducing construction activities will be limited to MondayFriday from 7:30 a.m.to 7:30 p.m. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON GROWTH &CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD No impact anticipated. Prepared by:Lisa Nicholas,AICP,Senior Planner July 14, 2015 Ms. JoAnn Cornish, Director and Members of the Planning Board Department of Planning and Development City of Ithaca 104 West Green Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 RE: Final SPR submission for Tompkins Financial Drive-Through Building Dear JoAnn and Members of the Planning Board: This letter transmits to you additional materials for the Final Site Development Plan Review for the Tompkins Financial Drive-Through Building. Attached and below please find additional project narrative to supplement the materials submitted on March 31, 2015, May 15, 2015, and June 9, 2015. Please do not hesitate to call should you have questions or require additional information. Updated Drawing Set (dated 7.13.2015) Geotechnical Report See attached report from Elwyn, Palmer, & Associates. City of Ithaca Fire Chief Approval The preliminary site plan was approved by Tom Parsons, Ithaca Fire Chief. We have sent the final site plan to him and are awaiting his review. Traffic Demand Management Report The client has developed a traffic demand management plan and is meeting with the City of Ithaca June 30th, 2015, to review. The final plan will be submitted after coordination with city officials. City Stormwater Management Officer Approval The project will disturb an area of approximately 14,000 s.f. Given the amount of disturbance, the project will not need to obtain a permit for stormwater discharges from the State of New York. The amount of disturbance does, however, exceed the threshold (10,890 s.f.) for a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the City of Ithaca Code. The Basic SWPPP requires temporary erosion and sediment controls during construction but permanent stormwater management facilities are not required by City Code. The proposed temporary erosion and sediment controls for the project are shown on the current civil drawings. The controls will be reviewed with the City Stormwater Management Officer (SMO) upon his return from a current absence. The Headquarters and Drive Through Buildings both received Preliminary Site Plan approval on June 23, 2015. This package contains documents for the Drive Through Building only. As you know, the proposed Drive Through project seeks to construct commercial space, parking, site amenities and landscaping in the City of Ithaca. The site consists of approximately 0.404 acres in downtown Ithaca at 113-119 East Seneca Street, south side adjacent to the Seneca Building (drive through site). Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP 1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 101 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400 www.twla.com On behalf of those involved, we look forward to reviewing the project with you and members of the Planning and Development Board at the July 28th Planning Board meeting. At this meeting, we hope that the following action can be taken. Final Site Plan Approval – Drive Through Building Sincerely, Kimberly Michaels Principal 2 of 2 & Elwyn Palmer Consulting Engineers, PLLC Subsurface Investigation Report for Proposed New Headquarters and Drive-Through Tompkins Financial 118-119 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY Prepared for: Mr. Greg Hartz Tompkins Trust Company 121 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Provided By: Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers PLLC 213 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Phone 607.272.5060 Fax 607.272.5065 www.ElwynPalmer.com July 2015 & 213 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Elwyn Palmer Consulting Engineers, PLLC 607.272.5060 T 607.272.5065 F www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 1 of 5 July 7, 2015 Mr. Greg Hartz Tompkins Trust Company 121 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Subsurface Investigation Report Tompkins Financial – New Headquarters and Drive Through Sites 118-119 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY Dear Mr. Hartz: This report will summarize the findings of a subsurface investigation that was performed at 118 and 119 East Seneca Street during May and June 2015. This report includes a description of the work performed, a discussion of the findings, and our recommendations for foundation design. A. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work included advancing two soil borings at 119 East Seneca Street for construction of a new drive through teller building and five borings at 118 East Seneca Street for construction of a new corporate headquarters building. Site plans showing the location of the borings are attached in the Appendix. Logs of each boring are included in the Appendix. The findings of the subsurface investigation and our recommendations for foundation design will be discussed in this report. B. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves construction of a new single-story wood or light-gauge metal framed Drive-Through Teller building to be located in the current parking area beneath the existing office building at 119 East Seneca Street. The project also includes construction of a new seven-story steel-framed headquarters building at the site of the existing Trust Company drive through teller building at 118 East Seneca Street. This building will include a basement level that will be located 12-13 ft below grade. The sites are both very relatively flat with the majority of both sites currently asphalt paved parking area. We understand significant grade change is not planned at either site. C. SUBSURFACE FINDINGS Soil borings were advanced using hollow stem augers. Split-spoon soil samples were taken in accordance with ASTM D1586. Site plans showing the boring locations is attached. Boring logs for each of the borings are attached. Borings B1 and B2 (New Drive Through) were advanced to a depth of 20 ft at the site of the proposed new drive through teller building at 119 East Seneca Street. Both borings encountered 6 inches of asphalt pavement underlain by fill consisting of sand, gravel, cobbles, & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 2 of 5 and brick fragments to a depth of approximately 6.5-8ft. Below this level the borings encountered primarily medium dense sand and gravel with occasional cobbles to a depth of approximately 15 ft. Between 15 and 20 ft we encountered primarily loose to medium dense fine to coarse sand and fine gravel. Groundwater was encountered in both borings at a depth of approximately 15 ft. Five borings (B1-B5) were advanced at the site of the proposed new headquarters building at 118 East Seneca Street to depths of 75-80 ft. The five borings encountered similar subsurface conditions. The borings encountered 5-8 ft of medium dense fill typical of that found in urban areas and consisting of gravel, sand, brick, coal cinders, asphalt, and some organic material. The fill was underlain by moist brown sand and silt of medium consistency that also contained occasional amounts of gravel, cobbles and peat to a depth of 12-16 ft. Below 12-16 ft we encountered moist to wet loose fine to coarse sand with occasional silt seams and amounts of peat. The N-values for this material ranged from 3 to 20 with the majority being less than 10. Beginning at a depth of between 55 and 60 ft the material becomes denser and consists of coarse sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt. The material continues to become denser with depth and below 65 ft becomes very hard and includes shale fragments. Borings were terminated between 75 and 80 ft. Groundwater levels were measured in each boring. Measurements were taken when groundwater was first encountered, at completion of drilling, and after drilling augers were removed from the borehole. Based on a review of the measurements, standing groundwater for the site is estimated to be 14.5-20 ft below grade. One important finding to note is that near the northeast corner of the site boring B2ABC at auger refusal was reached after encountering concrete and the boring was move. The boring was ultimately moved 4 times with the boring completed as boring B2D. In B2A, B2B, and B2c refusal on concrete was encountered at depths of 7.2, 4, and 10.8 ft, respectively. We were not able to confirm the reason for concrete in this location and discussions with the Owner’s representative revealed no known previous structures in that area. This concrete may be an issue during construction of the new building. D. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS We have completed an analysis of both sites for the proposed building construction. At the site of the proposed new drive through building the subsurface soils at the site of the proposed new buildings are primarily medium to dense sands and gravels to a depth of 15 ft with looser material beneath this depth. Based on the proposed building being single story and of light construction we believe this proposed structure can be supported on conventional shallow foundations and the proposed concrete floor may be constructed as a concrete slab-on-grade provided they are constructed in accordance with the recommendations detailed below. Foundations for the new drive through building shall bear on sound natural subgrade that is approved by the Engineer or a qualified representative. In fill areas the subgrade shall be approved prior to fill placement and structural fill shall be compacted in accordance with the recommendations included in this report. & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 3 of 5 For the new headquarters building our analysis has determined that a deep foundation system will be required to support the large loads generated by a seven story building. In addition, the new headquarters building includes a basement that will be located 12-13 ft below grade which is only several feet from where the subsurface soils become loose in consistency and likely to settle under application of significant loads. We would recommend end bearing piles that would extend down to approximately 65-70 ft below the current ground elevation. The borings have shown the material encountered at and below this depth to be very competent which will allow each pile to support significant loads. Due to the depth of excavation at this site and the compact site there will need to be a support of excavation plan created to allow excavation to the required depths and protection of adjacent structures and property. Also, dewatering of the site may be required to maintain a dry working area during construction of the basement. E. SEISMIC DESIGN Based on the soils encountered in the borings, the project sites can be classified as Seismic Site Class D according to the current edition of the Building Code of New York State. The subsurface exploration did not reveal soils vulnerable to liquefaction or collapse under seismic loading. F. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and engineering analyses, we have the following recommendations: Site Preparation and Excavation 1. Clear, grub, and strip topsoil and remove significant root structures within new construction areas. Remove any remnants of any existing abandoned structures encountered from within the new footprint. 2. In areas where fill is required, compact subgrade before placing fill by making at least 4 overlapping passes in perpendicular directions with a self-propelled roller weighing at least 30,000 lbs. Soft or uncompactable areas should be excavated and replaced with granular structural fill approved by the Engineer. The structural fill should be placed to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. 3. All excavation should be performed in accordance with all OSHA and other applicable safety standards. 4. Dewatering operations should be configured to route surface runoff and groundwater away from site and out of the excavation. Operations shall conform to applicable environmental regulations. & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 4 of 5 5. When structural fill is required beneath foundations it shall consist of an engineered mix of crushed ledge rock conforming to the following gradation: Sieve Size Percent Passing 2” 100 1” 80-95 ½” 45-75 #4 30-60 #40 10-40 #200 0-7 Foundation Design and Construction-New Drive Through Building 1. The foundations for the proposed new drive through building should bear on stable natural subgrade or compacted select fill that is approved by the Engineer. Foundations shall be set not less than 4 ft below finished grade to provide protection against frost. 2. Foundation subgrade to be free of loose or disturbed material. The loose soil at subgrade level should be compacted during a dry period prior to placing of forms. 3. Foundations for the proposed new building may be sized using an allowable bearing pressure of 1500 psf. 4. The slab on grade shall be placed on 8 inches of compacted select material. The subgrade below the select material shall be proofrolled in accordance with the above recommendations on Site Preparation. The slab should be reinforced against cracking in accordance with ACI design standards. Concrete slab-on-grade shall be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci. 5. Minimum width of column footings to be 30 inches, minimum width of wall footings to be 24 inches. 6. We anticipate total and differential settlements of less than 1 and ½ inch, respectively for these foundations. 7. Select granular fill for beneath the slab shall be clean bank run gravel conforming to the following gradation: Sieve Size Percent Passing 2” 100 ¼”” 35-65 #200 0-10 Foundation Design and Construction- New Headquarters Building 1. The recommended foundation system for the proposed new headquarters building. The system would consist of end bearing piles supported in the dense material located approximately 65-70 ft below existing grade. We recommend that the basement slab be a structural slab. 2. The piles should be tested by and experienced and reputable testing company to confirm and ultimate pile capacity of twice the intended service load for the pile. & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 5 of 5 3. We recommend drainage and a waterproofing system for the basement walls. The borings have shown that groundwater may be at levels above the proposed basement floor level. The contractor should be prepared for dewatering during construction. 4. A support of excavation plan (SOE) prepared and stamped by a NYS professional engineer will be required for this project. The SOE system will allow excavation to the required depths with near vertical side slopes and prevent damage to the adjacent buildings and property. H. CLOSING Elwyn & Palmer has prepared this report based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the project sites and our understanding of the proposed project. Changes in scope, location, structure type, or loads should be brought to our attention for review to allow us to make changes as necessary to the recommendations provided. Elwyn & Palmer has performed these services in a manner consistent with the standard methods and level of care exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made in connection with the providing of geotechnical engineering services. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ELWYN & PALMER CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLLC Michael C. Palmer, PhD, PE Partner Attachments & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com APPENDIX & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com BORING LOCATION PLANS B1 B2 Elwyn Palmer& Ithaca, New York www.ElwynPalmer.com607.272.5060 S1 SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY NEW DRIVE THROUGH BUILDING 119 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 6/11/15 15014 N BORING LOCATION B3 B1 B2D B5 B4 B2AB2A B2B B2C Elwyn Palmer& Ithaca, New York www.ElwynPalmer.com607.272.5060 S2 SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 118 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 6/11/15 15014 N BORING LOCATION ABANDONED BORING LOCATION & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com BORING LOGS & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com General Information and Key to Subsurface Logs The subsurface logs attached to this report present the observations and mechanical data collected by the driller at the site, supplemented by classification of the material removed from the boring as determined through visual identification by technicians in the laboratory. It is cautioned that the materials removed form the borings represent only a fraction of the total volume of the deposits at the site and may not necessarily be representative of the subsurface conditions between adjacent borings or between sampled intervals. The data presented on the subsurface logs together with the recovered samples will provide basis for evaluating the character of the subsurface conditions relative to the project. The evaluation must consider all the recorded details and their significance relative to each other. Often analyses of standard boring data indicate the need for additional testing or sampling procedures to more accurately evaluate the subsurface conditions. Any evaluation of the contents of this report and the recovered samples must be performed by Professionals. The information presented in the following list defines some of the procedures and terms used on the subsurface logs to describe the conditions encountered. 1. The figures in the depth column define the scale of the subsurface log. 2. The sample column shows the depth range from which the sample was recovered. The sample type column will show an “S” for split spoon sample, a “T” for a tube sample and a “C” for a rock core sample. 3. The sample number is used for identification o n sample containers and in laboratory reports. 4. The Blows on Sampler column shows results of the Standard Penetration Tests and indicates the number of blows required to drive a split spoon sampler into the soil. The number of blows required for each six inches of penetration is recorded. The first six inches of penetration is considered the seating drive. The number of blows required for the second and third six inches of penetration is termed the penetration resistance, N. The sampler diameter, hammer weight, and length of drop are noted on the log. 5. All recovered soil samples are reviewed in the laboratory by an engineering technician, geologist, or geotechnical engineer unless noted otherwise. The visual descriptions are made on the basis of a combination of the driller’s field descriptions and observations and the sample as viewed in the laboratory. The method of visual classification is based primarily on the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) with regard to particle size and plasticity. The relative portion by weight by weight of tow or more soil types is described for granular soils in accordance with “Suggested Methods of Test for Identification of Soils” by D.M. Burmister (ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 479, June 1970). The description of relative soil density or consistency is based on Penetration Test results. The description of soil moisture is based upon relative wetness of the soil as recovered and is described as dry, damp, moist, wet, and saturated. The presence of boulders and large gravel is sometimes, but not necessarily, detected by an evaluation of sampler blows or the behavior of the drill rig. 6. The description of rock is based on the recovered rock core and the driller’s observations. 7. The stratification lines present the approximate boundary between soil types. Actual boundaries may vary between sampling intervals and the transition may be gradual. Solid stratification lines are based on the driller’s field observations. 8. Miscellaneous observations and procedures noted by the driller are shown on the logs, including water level observations. It is important to realize the reliability of the water level observations depends upon the soil type (water does not readily stabilize in a hole through fine grained soils) and that drill water used to advance the boring may influence the observations. The groundwater level typically will fluctuate seasonally. One or more perched or trapped water levels may exist in the ground seasonally. All the available readings should be evaluated. If definite conclusion cannot be made, it may be necessary to examine the conditions more thoroughly through test pit excavations or observation wells. 9. The length of rock core run is defined as the length of penetration of the core barrel. Core recovery is the length of core recovered divided by the core run. The RQD (Rock Quality Designation) is the total pieces of NX core exceeding 4 inches in length divided by the core run. Fresh, irregular or drilling induced breaks are ignored and the pieces counted as intact lengths. RQD values are valid only for NX size cores (2.125” diameter). The barrel size is noted in the logs. & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com Definition of Descriptors used in Boring Logs Soil Type and Particle Size Soil Type Proportions Type Size Term Percent of Sample Boulder >12” “and” 35-50 Cobble 12”-3” “some” 20-35 Gravel “little” 10-20 Coarse 3”- ¾” “trace” 1-10 Fine ¾”-#4 Sand Coarse #4-#10 Medium #10-#40 Fine #40-#200 Silt <#200 Clay <#200 Relative Compactness or Consistency Granular Soils Fine Grained Soils Descriptor Blows/ft (N) Descriptor Blows/ft (N) Loose <11 Very Soft 0-2 Med-Dense 11-30 Soft 2-4 Dense 31-50 Medium 4-8 Very Dense >51 Stiff 8-15 Very Stiff 15-30 Hard >30 Stratification Description Varved – Horizontal uniform layers or seams Layer – Soil deposit more than 6” thick Seam – Soil deposit less than 6” thick Parting – Soil deposit less than 1/8” thick Rock Classification Terms Quality Terms Definition Hardness Soft Scratched by fingernail Medium hard Scratched easily by penknife Hard Scratched with difficulty by penknife Very hard Cannot be scratched with penknife Weathering Very weathered Judged by the relative amounts of disintegration, iron staining, Weathered core recovery, clay seams, etc. Sound Bedding Laminated/Fissile Less than 0.08” Thinly bedded ½” to 2” Medium bedded 2” to 2ft Thickly bedded 2 ft to 4 ft Massive More than 6 ft Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 0.8 2 S 0.6 3 S 0.5 4 S 0.9 5 S 0.7 6 S 0.1 7 S 0.8 8 S 0.6 9 S 0.5 6.0 BORING TERMINATED AT 20.0 15.3 SATURATED BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL AND FINE GRAVEL 10.5SAND. TRACE ROOT FIBERS SAND AND FINE GRAVEL 8.0 B1-New Drive Through 1 1 75 SUNNY MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS CO 05/17/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 05/17/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT 18.0 12.0Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 Project LM-1 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS TRUST COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: 17.5 OUTRock Sampler:05/17/15 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 05/17/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 3:45PM 4:20 PM 12.1 PHONE (607)842-6580 15.3 DRY AT 4.0' REMARKS S#6 DROVE COBBLE Casing at Hole at 30 20.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 30 5 0.5 15.0 20 10.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 8.0 3 520.0 12 19 36 50/.4 2.0 2.9 43 50/.3 48.0 12 9 12 4.8 12 2614 10 10.0 8 12 8 50/.3 6 10 16 14 15 11.3 10 15 14.0 2614 18717.0 12 11 10 4 5 9 25 24 BORING RELOCATED REFUSAL AT 2.9 BOULDER BUSTERBLACKTOP MOIST BROWN COMPACT COARSE TO FINE 0.5 MOIST BROWN FINE SAND. SOME SILT. TRACE CLAY. TRACE EMBEDDED MEDIUM TO COARSE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change% RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery SAMPLING RESUMED 1.0'/1.5' AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE BRICK FRAGMENTS Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt.Depth3.0' WEST (BEHIND CURB) MOIST BROWN FIRM COARSE TO FINE SAND Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 1.4 2 S 1.1 3 S 4 S 5 S 0.2 6 S 0.6 7 S 0.5 8 S 0.6 AT 8.0 AUGERS EASILY 12-13.0' POSSIBLE FINE SAND AND SILT 3/8" TREE ROOT IN S#6 BORING TERMINATED AT 20.0 14.4AND FINE GRAVEL SATURATED BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND 12.0 MOIST BROWN COMPACT COARSE TO FINE B2-New Drive Through 1 1 75 SUNNY 13.0POSSIBLE LOOSE FINE SAND AND SILT CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS CO 05/16/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 05/16/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT 18.0 13.0Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 Project LM-1 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS TRUST COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: 13.0 OUTRock Sampler:05/17/15 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 05/17/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 6:45 PM 7:10 PM 7.7 PHONE (607)842-6580 14.5 DRY BOULDER AT 7.5 REMARKS BORING RELOCATED Casing at Hole at 30 15.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 30 5 0.5 20 10.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 6.8 7 320.0 12 25 18 18 2.0 4.0 45 17 38 7 1810 50/.28.0 16 10 50/.3 6.0 10 8.2 10 9 20 5 15 12.0 20 18 15.0 145 18 38 4 3 7 25 8 20 20 BLACKTOP CONCRETE 0.5 0.2 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change% RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery 1.0'/1.5' 5' NORTH Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt.DepthLOCATION SAMPLING RESUMED TRACE MEDIUM SAND SIZE BRICK FRAGMENT AUGER REFUSAL AT 4.2 BORING RELOCATED 3.5' NNW OF ORIGINAL AUGER REFUSAL AT 7.8 SAND AND FINE GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND BOULDERS AT 6.5 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 1.0 2 S 1.5 3 S 0.5 4 S 0.7 5 S 0.9 6 S 0.7 7 S 1.0 8 S 0.0 9 S 1.0 10 S 0.7 11 S 1.3 12 S 0.9 13 S 1.1 14 S 0.8 15 S 1.6 49.0 46.0 SATURATED BROWN FIRM COARSE TO FINE SATURATED BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND 5.2 FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE SILT WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES MOIST BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND. SOME COARSE SAND. LITTLE SILT 17.5 SATURATED BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO WET BROWN SOFT SILT AND FINE SAND MOIST WET BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND 3.0COARSE TO FINE SAND 11.5 13.0 B1 1 2 75 SUNNY 12.0LITTLE SILT CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS CO 48.0 06/04/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/04/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT 43.0 38.0 33.0 28.0 18.0 12.0 23.0Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS TRUST COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: 17.5 73.5Rock Sampler:06/04/15 OUT Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/04/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 1:45PM 6:10 PM 06/04/15 76.0 19.5 PHONE (607)842-6580 17.5 22.3 17.4 SAND AND FINE GRAVEL REMARKS Casing at Hole at 30 7:15 PM 20.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 30 5 1.0 15.0 20 10.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 14 8.0 1 2 30.0 20.0 25.0 9 10 7 8 2.0 4.0 4 12 50/.3 98.0 5 5 8 4.8 8 146 10 10.0 2 2 14 11 10 14 5 24 15 12.0 12 12 14.0 75 5 23 18817.0 6 10 7 4 4 6 25 44 3 4 7 4 4 5 5 9 35.0 7 6 104 4 40.0 5 6 115 5 11 1045.0 10 10 50.0 3 5 1911 4 WATER ADDED TO BLACKTOP MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE GRAVEL AND 0.7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change 21 % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery CONCRETE 1.0'/1.5' AUGERS EASILY 12-15.5 AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE SILT Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. (POSSIBLE FINE SAND)DepthBORING AT 4.8 SAMPLE #8 DROVE GRAVEL MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND SOME FINE GRAVEL. TRACE BRICK (FILL) MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND 4.7-5.2 PROBABLE AUGERS EASILY 30-33 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 16 S 1.7 17 S 1.2 18 S 1.4 19 S 0.9 20 S 0.9 SATURATED BROWN GREY FINE TO COARSE SUBANGULAR SHALE FRAGMENTS. TRACE SILT. TILL LIKE MATERIAL BORING TERMINATED AT 76.0 66.5 SATURATED GREY VERY COMPACT FINE TO COARSE SAND. SOME FINE GRAVEL WITH COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE 56.8 56.0 SATURATED GREY SOFT SILT. LITTLE CLAY 58.5 B1 2 2 75 SUNNY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS CO 06/04/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/04/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT 74.0Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 55.0 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS TRUST COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: Rock Sampler: Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 PHONE (607)842-6580 REMARKS Casing at Hole at 30 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 80 55 65.0 70 70.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 90 85 95 100 72.0 4 53 1960.0 457.0 60 62.0 6 65 1812 19 412267.0 22 19 25 19 3428 77 75 76.0 42 42 22 6624 22 2 VERY COBBLY 52-54.5 AUGERS54.5 SATURATED GREY BROWN FIRM FINE TO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change% RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery 1.0'/1.5' Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt.DepthAUGERS VERY HARD AT 67.0' TRACE PEAT SATURATED GREY LOOSE FINE SAND SAND. SOME FINE GRAVEL. LITTLE SILT Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 0.6 2 S 1.6 3 S 1.1 4 S 0.5 5 S 0.3 6 S 0.0 AUGER REFUSAL AT 4.0 SOME FINE GRAVEL WITH BRICK AND COAL AUGER REFUSAL AT 7.2Depth ORIGINAL LOCATION SAMPLING RESUMED AT 10.0 CONCRETE AT 7.0 10.7 - CONCRETE BORING RELOCATION 8.0' NORTHWEST OF BORING RELOCATED 1.0'/1.5' 4.0' SOUTHEAST AUGER REFUSAL AT 10.8 (FILL) Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND AND ROTTEN WOOD MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change 10 BLACKTOP MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND 0.5 5 10 25 15 10.7 3 50/.2 WORWOR 1 50/.1 10 10.0 WOR8.0 4 3 3 6.0 3 105 20 12 24 9 10 10 12 2.0 4.0 7.1 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 Weather Conditions: 30 5 0.5 20 10.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Casing at Hole at 30 PHONE (607)842-6580 DRY 4.0' NORTHWEST REMARKS BORING RELOCATED Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/05/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 Other: Rock Sampler: Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 06/05/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/05/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT B2ABC 1 1 BORING TERMINATED AT 10.8 CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST 5.5 SOME FINE GRAVEL 8.0 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 0.6 2 S 0.8 3 S 0.6 4 S 0.9 5 S 1.3 6 S 1.7 7 S 1.7 8 S 1.6 9 S 1.8 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SANDDepth1.0'/1.5' Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery MOIST BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change 32 4 MOIST BROWN SOFT SILT 1551.0 8 17 2 246.0 3 2 2141.0 2 4 31 1 2 4 1 6231.0 10 4 5 3 10 25 55 77WOR WOR 3 77 6 1316.0 127 55 15 6 10 12.0 510.0 21.0 26.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 17 36.034.0 Weather Conditions: 30 5 20 06/08/15 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Casing at Hole at OUT 30 9:30 AM PHONE (607)842-6580 31.0 19.5 24.2 13.8 REMARKS 23.510:30 AM 1:00 PM 7:30 PM 06/08/15 26.0 58.0 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/05/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 Other: 73.5Rock Sampler:06/05/15 58.0 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 19.0 14.0 24.0 29.0 44.0 39.0 49.0 06/05/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/08/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT B2D 1 2 80 SUNNY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST 4.0 8.0 18.0 OCCASIONAL COBBLES SATURATED BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND 26.5 30.0 AND FINE GRAVEL (FILL SATURATED BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE SILT WITH SATURATED GREY SOFT SILT. LITTLE FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GREY CLAY SEAMS 32.5UP TO 2" THICK GRADES TO SATURATED GREY SOFT 35.0 35.5 ORGANIC SILT SATURATED GREY LOOSE FINE SAND SATURATED GREY SOFT ORGANIC SILT. TRACE PEAT WITH OCCASIONAL BLACK FINE SAND SEAMS OCCASIONAL COBBLES SATURATED BROWN COMPACT COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL WITH 47.5 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 10 S 1.5 11 S 1.2 12 S 13 S 1.3 14 S 1.0Depth AT 56.0' WITH COBBLES 1.0'/1.5' SIMILAR COLOR GRADES TO GREY Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 57.0 Depth of Change AUGERS HARDER17 23 31 42 75 1915 603419 26 19 2316 17 4066.0 76 65 30 4828 18 60 61.0 2759.0 1715 17 3456.0 71.0 76.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 90 85 95 100 Weather Conditions: 80 55 70 54.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Casing at Hole at 30 PHONE (607)842-6580 REMARKS Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 Other: Rock Sampler: Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 69.0 64.0 74.0 06/05/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/08/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT B2D 2 2 80 SUNNY 62.0 CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST COLOR GRADES TO BROWN BORING TERMINATED AT 76.0 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 1.2 2 S 1.5 3 S 1.1 4 S 1.2 5 S 0.1 6 S 0.1 7 S 1.4 8 S 1.0 9 S 0.8 10 S 1.0 11 S 1.7 12 S 1.6 13 S 0.8 14 S 1.5 15 S 0.8 MOIST BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND. LITTLE HAIR SIZE ROOT FIBERSDepth S#8 3" SPOON USED FOR RECOVERY 1.0'/1.5' MOIST BROWN FIRM COARSE TO FINE SAND Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery AND FINE GRAVEL MOIST BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 7.0 Depth of Change 9 BLACKTOP MOIST BROWN FIRM COARSE TO FINE SAND 0.4 50.0 7 14 8 52.0 7 7 79 137 66647.0 42.0 4 10 177 8 4237.0 2 2 3 3 32 11 73 3 4 25 27.0 5 4 43 11 6317.0 2 3 6 114 15 19 8 17 15 12.0 12 11 14.0 4 7 11 8 6 7 12 1912 10 10.0 118.0 15 12 7 6.0 14 2315 32.0 14 12 18 5 7 7 9 2.0 4.0 22.0 8.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 Weather Conditions: 30 5 0.5 15.0 20 20.0 10.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Casing at Hole at 30 10:45 AM 22.0 PHONE (607)842-6580 18.3 18.5 15.5 S#5 DROVE GRAVEL REMARKS 11:00 AM MARKED LOCATION 9:45 AM 06/09/15 48.5 20.5 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/08/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 Other: 19.5 48.5Rock Sampler:06/09/15 OUT Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 12.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 45.0 40.0 06/08/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/08/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT - RELOCATED 5' NE OF 15.0 B3 1 2 80 SUNNY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE SILT 5.0 AND FINE GRAVEL 12.0 16.5 MOIST GREY BROWN FINE SAND. SOME SILT LITTLE MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND. TRACE PEAT 18.5 MOIST BROWN FINE SAND 30.5 FINE GRAVEL. TRACE BRICK. ASPHALT. TRACE SATURATED BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL SATURATED GREY SOFT SILT. SOME CLAY TRACE FINE SAND 33.0 GRADES TO SATURATED GREY SOFT ORGANIC SILT. LITTLE CLAY. TRACE PEAT WITH OCCASIONAL FINE SAND. SEAMS UP TO 2" THICK 40.5 SATURATED BROWN FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE SILT WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 16 S 1.4 17 S 1.0 18 S 1.1 19 S 0.5 20 S 0.7 COBBLES AT 57DepthAUGERS SLIGHTLY HARDER WITH MORE 1.0'/1.5' Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change 7 50/.3 38 75 76.3 17 26 50/.4 171167.0 9 6 14 188 1010 65 60 62.0 1260.0 757.0 7 147 70.9 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 90 85 95 100 Weather Conditions: 80 55 65.0 70 70.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Casing at Hole at 30 PHONE (607)842-6580 REMARKS MARKED LOCATION Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 Other: Rock Sampler: Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 55.0 75.0 06/08/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/08/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT - RELOCATED 5' NE OF B3 2 2 80 SUNNY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST 67.5 SATURATED BROWN COMPACT FINE TO BORING TERMINATED AT 76.3 COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE SILT WITH COBBLES AUGERS VERY HARD AND COBBLY AT 70.0 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 1.0 2 S 1.1 3 S 0.5 4 S 0.9 5 S 1.1 6 S 0.8 7 S 0.3 8 S 1.1 9 S 1.4 10 S 1.5 11 S 1.0 12 S 1.3 13 S 1.0 14 1.0 15 1.1 33.5 GRADES TO SATURATED BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES 31.5 SATURATED BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. SOME SILT. LITTLE MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE SAND 17.5 SATURATED BROWN LOOSE FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SOME FINE GRAVEL (POSSIBLE FILL) 4.0 2.5FINE GRAVEL (FILL) 8.0 B4 1 2 80 SUNNY "LOOKS CLEAN" CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST 06/09/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/10/15 HARRY LYON BORING RELOCATED 3.0' NE OF 35.0 45.0 40.0 25.0 30.0 13.0Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: 19.5 73.5Rock Sampler:06/10/15 78.0 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/09/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 16.7 16.8 1:30 PM 2:00 PM MARKED LOCATION 9:00 AM 06/10/15 76.0 79.0 PHONE (607)842-6580 18.1 17.1 17.3 27.5 22.3 CUTTINGS REMARKS 10:45 AM Casing at Hole at OUT OUT 30 11:30 AM 22.0 06/10/15 06/11/15 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 30 5 0.5 15.0 20 20.0 10.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 8.0 22.0 9 9 5 4 2.0 4.0 32.0 16 5 9 6 147 58.0 5 8 12 6.0 4 175 10 10.0 WOR 1 6 3 4 12 8 10 15 12.0 8 5 15.0 43 8 8 13317.0 8 10 4 3 22 5 25 27.0 2 6 7 104 4 2 31 62 37.0 6 7 4 136 3312 1242.0 5 21 947.0 135 88 8550.0 8 13 7 52.0 7 5 5 BLACKTOP MOIST BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND. SOME 0.4 FINE GRAVEL. LITTLE BRICK (FILL) MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 6.5 Depth of Change% RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery WOOD IN AUGER 1.0'/1.5' S#7 DROVE GRAVEL MOIST BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND AND Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt.DepthMOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND LITTLE FINE GRAVEL. LITTLE BRICK (FILL) 6.0'-8.0' BRICK AND Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 16 S 1.0 17 S 1.2 18 S 0.7 19 S 1.2 20 S 1.6 21 S 0.0 AUGERS HARDER DRILLED 76-79 AT 72.0' BORING TERMINATED AT 79.0 57.5 76.5 PROBABLE HARD GREY TILL LIKE MATERIAL B4 2 2 80 SUNNY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST 06/09/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/10/15 HARRY LYON BORING RELOCATED 3.0' NE OF 74.0 78.5Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 55.0 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: Rock Sampler: Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 MARKED LOCATION PHONE (607)842-6580 REMARKS Casing at Hole at 30 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 80 55 65.0 70 70.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 90 85 95 100 72.0 78.6 7 1710 1860.0 1057.0 60 62.0 32 65 6430 40 301267.0 30 18 18 16 2419 35 75 76.0 29 22 15 4119 15 50/.1 7 AUGERS HARDER WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change% RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery 1.0'/1.5' COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. AUGER REFUSALDepthAT 57.5' (BUT NOT REAL HARD) AT 79.0 GRADES TO SATURATED BROWN COMPACT ON 6/10/15 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 1 S 1.3 2 S 1.6 3 S 1.6 4 S 1.3 5 S 1.0 6 S 0.8 7 S 0.3 8 S 0.3 9 S 1.0 10 S 1.4 11 S 0.5 12 S 1.6 13 S 0.6 TRACE HAIR SIZE MOIST WET BROWN LOOSE FINE TO MEDIUM SAND. TRACE SILT SAND. SOME FINE GRAVEL. TRACE COAL.DepthAUGERS VERY EASILY BUT COBBLY 11-17.5' 1.0'/1.5' 10-12' TRACE BRICK (FILL) Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt. % RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO MEDIUM SAND ("LOOKS CLEAN") MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Depth of Change 15 BORING ON EAST SIDE OF .7-.9 - CONCRETEBLACKTOP MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND 0.6 16 20 125 57847.0 42.0 3 1 43 3 12537.0 5 7 2 5 65 31 117 9 8 25 27.0 1 4 106 24 28817.0 18 20 9 14 20 20 15 12.0 7 6 9 14 11 9 4 92 10 10.0 78.0 9 7 7 6.0 17 248 32.0 38 15 26 20 18 7 11 2.0 4.0 22.0 8.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 40 35 45 50 Weather Conditions: 30 5 0.5 15.0 20 20.0 10.0 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Casing at Hole at 30 22.0 PHONE (607)842-6580 17.2 14.9 REMARKS ROOT FIBERS BETWEEN 4:15 PM 10:20 AM 47.0 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/10/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 Other: 19.5 44.5Rock Sampler:06/11/15 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 2.0 4.0 6.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 45.0 40.0 06/10/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/11/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT B5 1 2 80 SUNNY 8.2TRACE PEAT CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND MOIST BROWN SOFT SILT. LITTLE FINE SAND 5.2 4.5AND FINE GRAVEL 6.0 7.0 11.0AND FINE GRAVEL MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND 16.0AND FINE GRAVEL WITH COBBLES MOIST WET BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE 31.0 MOIST BROWN COMPACT FINE TO COARSE 17.0SAND AND FINE GRAVEL WITH COBBLES SIMILAR SATURATED 32.5 SATURATED BROWN SOFT SILT. LITTLE FINE SAND. TRACE ROTTEN ROOT FIBERS SATURATED BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL 39.0 40.5 SATURATED GREY LOOSE FINE SAND. LITTLE MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND. TRACE WOOD 41.0 SATURATED BROWN SOFT SILT. SOME FINE SAND. LITTLE PEAT. SATURATED GREY BROWN LOOSE FINE TO SATURATED BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL COARSE SAND. SOME FINE GRAVEL. LITTLE SILT 44.0 Boring No. Project No. LYON DRILLING CO.Sheet of Date Started BORING LOG Date Completed Driller lb. Fall in. lb. Fall in. 14 S 1.6 15 S 1.0 16 S 1.0 17 S 1.2 18 S 1.1 19 S 1.0 20 S 0.1 AUGERS HARDER AT 76.7' BORING TERMINATED AT 77.2 COARSE TO FINE SAND AND FINE GRAVEL SATURATED GREY POSSIBLE SHALE BEDROCK 76.7 54.0 GRAVEL. SOME COARSE TO FINE SAND B5 2 2 80 SUNNY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOMPKINS TRUST 06/10/15 Boring Location Surface Elevation 06/11/15 HARRY LYON AS STAKED, BY CLIENT 75.0 77.0Sample Number Sample Depth From (Ft) 55.0 Project CME 55 3 1/4" I.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS COMPANY Location Drill Rig 119 EAST SENECA ST, ITHACA, NY Other: 74.5 OUTRock Sampler:06/11/15 Water atDate Casing Ground Water Observations 06/11/15 TimeSoil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON 140 2:20 PM 3:45 PM 19.0 PHONE (607)842-6580 22.5 16.4 REMARKS Casing at Hole at 30 77.2 Sample Recovery To (Ft) 0'/0.5'N Sample Type0.5'/1.0' Weather Conditions: 80 55 50.0 65.0 70 70.0 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. 90 85 95 100 72.0 77.2 7 652.0 4 10 10 2111 1760.0 1657.0 60 62.0 25 65 4217 17 351667.0 30 19 20 25 1920 45 75 77.0 14 21 33 5130 19 50/.2 10 4 AUGERS HARDER GRADES TO SATURATED BROWN LOOSE FINE 50.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 58.0 Depth of Change% RQD SOIL Blows on Sampler Ft. 1.5'/2.0' Rock Recovery 1.0'/1.5' AUGER REFUSAL AT 64.0' SIMILAR COMPACT Client ELWYN PALMER Casing Hammer: Wt. Sample Hammer: Wt.Depth-POSSIBLE FINE SAND AT 58.0' AUGERS EASIER 68'-69' GRADES TO SATURATED BROWN FIRM TRACE SILT WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AUGER REFUSAL AT 77.0' File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/14/2015000COVER SHEETDATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092TOMPKINS FINANCIALDRIVE THROUGH FACILITYTWMLA Project No. 2015009Architect:HOLT Architects217 N Aurora St # 3,Ithaca, NY 14850(607) 273-7600Landscape Architect:Trowbridge Wolf MichaelsLandscape Architects LLP1001 W. Seneca StreetSuite 201Ithaca, NY 14850Kimberly Michaels607-277-1400Civil Engineering:T.G. Miller, PC203 N. Aurora StreetIthaca, New York 14850David Herrick607-272-6477FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW DOCUMENTSJULY 14, 2014GENERAL000 COVER1 OF 1 SITE SURVEY - 116 EAST SENECACIVILC101 UTILITY PLANC201 SITE UTILIY DETAILSLANDSCAPEL001 SITE RENDERINGL101 SITE DEMOLITION PLANL201 LAYOUT PLANL301 GRADING PLANL401 PLANTING PLANL501 SITE DETAILSARCHITECTURALA100 FIRST FLOOR PLANA201 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - WESTA202 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EASTA203 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTHA204 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTHA205 PERSPECTIVE - NORTHEASTA206 PERSPECTIVE - NORTHA207 PERSPECTIVE - NORTHWESTDRAWING LISTVICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)RENDERED PLANS (NOT TO SCALE) C101 C201 1ABCDEBUILDINGABOVE21' - 0"21' - 0"21' - 0"19' - 0"82' - 0"15' - 0 7/8"11' - 8"PROPERTY LINEATM9' - 4"5' - 8 7/8"PROGRESSPRINTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910WARNING: It is a violation ofNew York State Law for anyperson, unless acting under thedirection of a licensed Architect,to alter this document in any way.If a document bearing the seal ofan Architect is altered, thealtering Architect shall affix tosuch document his seal and thenotation "altered by" followed byhis signature, the date of suchalteration, and a specificdescription of the alteration.ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:7/7/201510:47:16AMA100FIRST FLOORPLAN6/6/2015119 E SENECA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850TOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYDRIVE THRU2015014EB/NBSCHEMATIC DESIGNREVISION SCHEDULENAME DATE0'1'2'4'8' DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEELEVATION - WESTA2013/8”=1’-0”1 DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEELEVATION - EASTA2023/8”=1’-0”1 DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEL201L201ELEVATION - NORTHA2033/8”=1’-0”1 DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEL201L201ELEVATION - SOUTHA2043/8”=1’-0”1 DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEL201L201PERSPECTIVENORTHEASTA301 DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEL201L201PERSPECTIVENORTHA302 DATE:PROJECT:OTHER:DRAWN BY:ABCDEFGABCDEFG1234567891012345678910ArchitecturePlanningInterior Design217 North Aurora StreetIthaca NY 14850p 607.273.7600 f 607.273.0475JVB, JLF14 JULY 2015ITHACA, NEW YORKTOMPKINS TRUST COMPANYSENECA STREETDRIVE THRU FACILITY1001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 101 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400 Fax 607-277-6092File: T:\PROJECTS\TTC Seneca\ACAD\14038 Drive-Through.dwg Plot Date: 7/10/2015L201TITLEL201L201PERSPECTIVENORTHWESTA303 APPEAL #2988 506 S. CAYUGA STREET (THOMAS AMICI) Appeal of Thomas Amici for Mazza and Amici, LLC, owners of 506 South Cayuga for a variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. On May 5, 1985, the former owner of 506 South Cayuga Street, James Iacovelli appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance, which would allow the conversion of a single-family home into a two-family unit. Variances were primarily needed because the property provided no off- street parking and since parking could not be developed on the property due to the lot size and topography. The Board granted the variance for the lack of off-street parking, as well as the property’s existing lot size, front yard, side yard, and rear yard deficiencies. However, granting the variance was conditioned on the owner obtaining a lease agreement on a yearly basis for three off-site parking spaces within 500 feet of 506 South Cayuga Street. The current owner, Mazza and Amici, LLC, purchased 506 South Cayuga Street in 1986. They have provided the three off-site parking spaces over the years, but now state their ability to lease off-site parking within 500 feet of 506 South Cayuga Street has ended. The property that had additional off- site parking spaces for 506 South Cayuga Street was sold. The current owner plans to redevelop this property. The applicant claims that there now is no off-site parking available within 500 feet of 506 South Cayuga Street and is requesting relief from the off-street parking requirements for the duplex. The property at 506 South Cayuga Street has two units: the four-bedroom unit requires two parking spaces and the one bedroom apartment requires one space. 506 South Cayuga Street is in an R-3a Zoning District where neighborhood parking (off-site parking) is allowed. Although a two-family unit is a permitted in the R-3a Zoning District; Section 325-39 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance be granted for the parking deficiencies before a Certificate of Compliance can be issued. CITY OF ITHACA Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Appeal The following description outlines the concerns that relate to development restrictions, the proposed development, and reason for the appeal at 416-418 E. State St.: The proposed development and renovation for the property located at 416-418 E. State St. is for a mixed use building to include a bar, existing and expanded oce space, one apartment, and unoccupied storage as an accessory use to the bar and oce spaces. The exterior landscape will also be renovated. The front yard will have a stripped parking lot with a handicapped space, and a handicapped accessible ramp for access to the front entry of the building. The landcape will be replanted with new plants. The back entry will also be formalized with a small deck and a set of stairs that connect the entrance to the base of the retaining wall in the Argos Inn parking lot. An easement agreement is being signed between the two owners of the property. The existing building is legally non-conforming for oce and light industrial uses. Therefore, the redevelopment will include a change of use for large portions of the building. All proposed uses are permitted as of right with the B-4 zoning district in which the building resides. Likewise, the building and property complies with zoning for lot size, width at street, number of stories, building height, front and rear yards, and minimum building height. A “Zoning Determination” was made by the Director of Zoning Administration, Phyllis Radke, for the property at 416-418 E. State St. Over the years, the building was expanded in size and with new uses that were not approved, or have been made illegal through the sale of the adjacent parcel at 406-410 E State St. As a result, the property now has zoning deciencies in relation to both side yard setbacks and lot coverage (see Site Plan). In addition, depending on the uses in the proposed development, the property is limited in parking. However, the proposed development for the property includes provisions to satisfy all parking requirements with shared parking, and therefore, does not need a parking variance. A Memorandum of Agreement is being signed between East State LLC and Gateway Plaza Associates, LLC. For the Bar and Restaurant, 22 parking spaces will be reserved for patrons from 4:30 PM to 1:30 AM. For the Oce, 15 parking spaces will be reserved for patrons from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. A variance is being sought to permit the zoning deciencies. The side yard setback on the east is decient for less than 18 linear feet of the entire east building face, which is just over 112 linear feet, with a least setback dimension of +/-3.6’. A residential building is located a little over 11’ from the building along the east side. The side yard setback on the west is as small as +/-0.2’ and increases to +/-1.1’ at the northwest corner. The entire west façade abuts the parking lot for the Argos Inn at 406-410 E State St. The development proposal includes a permanent easement along the west side to increase the eective setback for potential building code purposes (increased openings). The lot coverage of the existing building is currently 60% of the lot area whereas 50% is the maximum allowed. No enlargement of the building, footprint or height, is planned at this time. REASON FOR APPEAL: 408 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 PERSONS NOTIFIED: sameUnity Inn, LLC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 200’ OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS:OWNER: 422-24 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 sameJonah Freedman Alicia Freedman 420 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 209 S. Geneva St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Rosetree Propeties, LLC 500-550 E. Seneca Ithaca, NY 14850 P.O. Box DH Ithaca, NY 14853 Cornell University 431 E. Seneca Ithaca, NY 14850 407 W. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Thomas Borg Margarette Borg 401 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 323 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 GPA Management, LLC 419 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 sameVirginia L. August Matthew Clark 417 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 sameBenjamin D. Piekut Ann P. Lewandowski 427 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 sameCharles Warner Trent Bradley Charles Randolph Bradley 423 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 sameAlyssa B. Apsel 413 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 1284 Ellis Hollow Road Ithaca, NY 14850 David L. McFarren 415 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 4445 Waterburg Rd. Trumansburg, NY 14886 Louis A. Licari 404-406 NY 76 Ithaca, NY 14850 P.O. Box 678 Vestal, NY 13851 140 Seneca Way, LLC 116 Schuyler Pl. Ithaca, NY 14850 100 Christopher Cir. Ithaca, NY 14850 Joseph G. Giordano Alexandra D. Giordano 108 Schuyler Pl. Ithaca, NY 14850 PO Box 7124 Ithaca, NY 14851 Neil M. Schill Katherin Achenbach 118 Schuyler Pl. Ithaca, NY 14850 404 North Wilbur Ave. Sayre, PA 18840 Timothy T. Terpening 112 Schuyler Pl. Ithaca, NY 14850 914 E. State St. Ithaca, NY 14850 William F. Olney CITY OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF) Project Information (to be completed by applicant or project sponsor) 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: 3. Project Location: 4. Is Proposed Action: New Expansion Modification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly: 6. Precise Location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map): 7. Amount of Land Affected: Initially: ______ Acres or Sq. Ft. Ultimately: ______ Acres or Sq. Ft. 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes No If no, describe briefly: 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: Residential Industrial Agricultural Parkland/Open Space Commercial Other _________________ Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (federal/state/local): Yes No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type: 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? Yes No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type: 12. As a result of proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification? Yes No I certify the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: ____________________________ DATE: ________ PREPARER'S TITLE: __________________________________ REPRESENTING: _____________________________________ Ben Rosenblum- East State LLC / Scott Whitham 12,850 416 East State Street 416-418 East State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Multi-story apartments, hotels, commercial businesses and oces, restaurants, and parking garages are in vicinity Board of Zoning Appeals; Area and Use Variance X X X X X X X 06/19/2015 Scott Whitham, President, Whitham Planning & Design, LLC Ben Rosenblum, East State LLC Eastern downtown Ithaca; 400 block of E. MLK Jr. / E. State Street; East of The Argos Inn and across from Gateway Center. It is a 2-story, 8,396 gsf existing building. Ground oor includes bar / restaurant, storage, and oces. The upper oor will have 1 apartment. Project is requesting an area variance to redevelop an existing, former manufacturing space. The building’s ground oor will be converted into a bar/restuarant with storage and oce spaces, while a residence will be on the 2nd oor. 12,850 Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850 July 7, 2015 Phyllis Radke Director of Zoning Administration, City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: 416 East State Street—Board of Zoning Appeals Application—Revisions Addressing Concerns and Questions Dear Phyllis Radke: On behalf of the Applicant, East State LLC, enclosed please find the following documents as a resubmission of the Board of Zoning Appeals Application Package for the proposed 416 East State Street Project located at 416-418 E. State Street: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals Application Materials 2. Project Drawings; a. Project and Shared Parking Location b. Existing Survey c. Code Review of Project d. Proposed Project Plans e. Proposed Project Elevations 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form- City (SEAF); We have addressed your comments, concerns, and questions in the following manner: 1. For the clarity of our application, we have separated the Site Plan Application of Limited Scope from our package. 2. In this updated application, storage spaces are more clearly defined as an accessory use to the bar and office space. 3. We have added more clarity to the application regarding the shared parking agreement being drafted between East State LLC and Gateway Plaza Associates, LLC. The details of number of spaces per use, and the times the parking spaces are available, have been added to a new drawing sheet. The drawing describes context, distance of parking spaces to the project, and number of spaces. The following has also been added to the description of the project: a. An agreement is currently being drafted with owners of the Gateway Building to fulfill parking requirements. For the Bar and Restaurant, 22 parking spaces will be reserved for patrons from 4:30 PM to 1:30 AM. For the Office, 15 parking spaces will be reserved for patrons from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. 4. We have double-checked our measurements and numbers regarding square footage and lot coverage. When the numbers were originally calculated, the exterior porch was not included. Including the porch, Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850 the square footage is 7,714 SF. Our lot coverage was rounded up to 60%, and remains at 60%. Our numbers reference a survey we received from T.G. Miller on January 27, 2015. 5. We are addressing the illegally constructed apartment in the following manner: a. Our variance request is for the building uses as they legally exist, which includes light manufacturing and office space. The illegal apartment would be included as office spaces. In parallel we have a proposal to the building department for a change of use within the building and all uses are permitted by zoning (storage areas are accessory). The building permit will make the apartment space legal by bringing it up to code. The variance is simply for deficiencies in lot coverage and yard setbacks. It is understood that the change of use is technically the trigger for requiring the variance to achieve code compliance. However, we also acknowledge that the granting of a variance does not constitute an approval of the apartment use. Similarly, we cannot obtain a building permit for a proposal that includes a change of use, i.e. the apartment, until a variance is granted. The proposed development and renovation for the property located at 416-418 E. State St. is for a mixed use building to include a bar, existing and expanded office space, one apartment, and unoccupied storage as an accessory use to the bar and office spaces. The exterior landscape will also be renovated. The front yard will have a stripped parking lot with a handicapped space, and a handicapped accessible ramp for access to the front entry of the building. The landscape will be replanted with new plants. The back entry will also be formalized with a small deck and a set of stairs that connect the entrance to the base of the retaining wall in the Argos Inn parking lot. The existing building is legally non-conforming for office and light industrial uses. Therefore, the redevelopment will include a change of use for large portions of the building. All proposed uses are permitted as of right with the B-4 zoning district in which the building resides. The property currently has zoning deficiencies in relation to both side yard setbacks and lot coverage resulting from past use and development of the property and building. In addition, depending on the uses in the proposed development, the property is limited in parking. However, the proposed development for the property includes provisions to satisfy all parking requirements with shared parking, and therefore, does not need a parking variance. An agreement is currently being drafted with owners of the Gateway Building to fulfill parking requirements. For the Bar and Restaurant, 22 parking spaces will be reserved for patrons from 4:30 PM to 1:30 AM. For the Office, 15 parking spaces will be reserved for patrons from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. A variance is being sought to permit the zoning deficiencies. We look forward to working with you and presenting the project at the August BZA meeting. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Scott Whitham 2350 SFB1761 SFB345 SFA-21061 SFS-1220 SFA-2Code Analysis LegendA-2BS-1PROPOSEDPERMANENTEASEMENTHATCHED AREAIS FOOTPRINTOF DWELLINGABOVE5'-1"10'-1"79 SFA-2STAGESTORAGEBAR256 SFA-257 SFA-2196 SFA-2Egress CorridorRestroomsStanding500 SFB2 HOUR FIREBARRIER1 HOUR FIREBARRIER/ENCLOSUREBar Seating150 SFA-2125 SFA-2Egress pathEgress path185 SFA-2LEGALLY EXISTINGBUSINESS USESNEW BUSINESS AREA53'travel33'travel66'travelOffice2 HOUR FIREBARRIER2 HOUR FIREBARRIER1112 SFR-31 HOUR FIREBARRIER/ENCLOSURE35'travelCode Analysis LegendR-3ROOFScale:Project No:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:Copyright Jason K Demarest, Architect301 S. Geneva StreetSuite 101Ithaca, New York 14850p: 607.330.4555 f: 607.330.4508www.jkdarchitect.com 1/8" = 1'-0"6/19/2015 9:16:03 AMITHACA, NY 14850R1.00Code AnalysisPlansROSB01416 - 418 E STATE STEAST STATE LLC06/19/15JKDJKDPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONArea Schedule - Code AnalysisName Level Area OccupancyOccupantFactorOccupantLoadA-2 First Floor 125 SF Business 100 1.2Business 125 SF 1.2A-2 First Floor 220 SF Kitchen/Bar 200 1.1Kitchen/Bar 220 SF 1.1A-2 First Floor 256 SF Non-Contributing 0A-2 First Floor 196 SF Non-Contributing 0Non-Contributing 452 SF 0.0A-2 First Floor 79 SF Stage 15 5.2Stage 79 SF 5.2A-2 First Floor 57 SF Standing 5 11.4A-2 First Floor 185 SF Standing 5 37.0Standing 242 SF 48.4A-2 First Floor 345 SF Tables & Chairs 15 23.0A-2 First Floor 150 SF Tables & Chairs 15 10.0Tables & Chairs 495 SF 33.0A-2 1612 SF 89.0B First Floor 2350 SF Business 100 23.5B First Floor 1761 SF Business 100 17.6B First Floor 500 SF Business 100 5.0Business 4611 SF 46.1B 4611 SF 46.1R-3 Second Floor 1112 SF Residential 200 5.6Residential 1112 SF 5.6R-3 1112 SF 5.6S-1 First Floor 1061 SF Storage 300 3.5Storage 1061 SF 3.5S-1 1061 SF 3.5Grand total: 14 8396 SF 144.2 1/8" = 1'-0"1First Floor 1/8" = 1'-0"2Second FloorMINIMUM PLUMBING FACILITIESB- Business:Water Closets- 1 per 25 for the first 50 per gender; 1 per 50 thereafterLavatories- 1 per 40 for the first 80 per gender; 1 per 80 thereafterA-2- Restaurants:Water Closets- 1 per 75 per genderLavatories- 1 per 200 per genderR-3- 1 per dwelling unit*Occupant load split by gender is 50/50 (rounded)REQUIRED FIXTURE COUNTS:B* area: 24 occupants = 1 per genderWater Closets: 1 male/ 1 femaleLavatories: 1 male/ 1 female*Note: Existing business areas have separate legally existing facilitiesA-2 area: 89 occupants = 1 per genderWater Closets: 1 male/ 1 femaleLavatories: 1 male/ 1 femaleR-3 area: Provide 1 bathroomBUILDING AREA PER FLOORFirst Floor- 7284 SFSecond Floor- 1112 SF0'Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"8'4'8'16'Revision ScheduleNumber Description Date D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.LIGHT ELEV=455.4'LIGHT ELEV=456.2'LIGHT ELEV=457.6'LIGHT ELEV=459.0'1.4'±1.1'±11.4'±3.6'±0.2'± CLEAR20'11.5'±19.4'±N 79°32'57" W 85.37'S 15°25'30" W 161.62'S 70°36'54" E 68.58'N 20°53'38" E 174.56'PIPEFOUNDOF PROP. LINE1.4' NLYPIPE FOUNDFACE OF CURBCURB CUTSTREET LINECONCRETE WALKMERIDIAN OFS 70°38'20'' E30.63'S T R E E T L I N E C O N C R E T E W A L K F A C E O F C U R B S C H U Y L E R P L A C E C O N C R E T E R E T A I N I N G W A L L HOUSENO.422-424HOUSENo. 420E D G E O F G R A V E L SANITARYMANHOLEEDGE OF GRAVELGRAVELPARKINGOLD SLATE WALKCONCRETE WALLFREEDMAN (R.O.)591339-002SCHILL & ACHENBACH (R.O.)511086-001N 79°33'02'' W56.10'CITY STREETSCONCRETE WALKCONCRETE WALKCONCRETE WALK5.4'±5.5'±CONCRETE WALLGARAGEPINFOUNDPIPEFOUND4.40'33.10'36.10'69.50'16.73'POLEMEAS. 96.1'± ALONGSTREET LINE TO WEST LINESCHUYLER PLACEGRAVELPARKINGPOLEPOLEBUILDINGNo. 408-410592969-001803/119AUGUSTA & CLARK (R.O.)2508/2592APSEL (R.O.)799/345GIORDANO (R.O.)CURB CUTCURB FACECONCRETE WALKSTONE WALKPIEKUT & LEWANDSKI (R.O.)576 sq. ft.3240 sq. ft.STONE WALLPATIOPATIOPATIOWALKSTONE WALKSTONE WALLUNITY INN LLC (R.O.)549343-003PINFOUNDPINFOUND905/67OLNEY (R.O.)CONCRETE WALK598045-001ROSETREE PROPERTIES (R.O.)CURB FACE42.34' (P TO P)26.19' (P TO P)45.20' (P TO P)116.42' (P TO P)PORCHCONCRETE WALLCONCRETE WALLASPHALT DRIVEPINFOUNDPINFOUNDPINFOUNDPIPEFOUNDSTONE WALLWINDOWWELLWINDOWWELLLEGEND-DOWN SPOUT-LIGHT POLE-UTILITY POLEE.E.-ENTRANCE ELEVATION2.4'±PIPE FOUNDBURIEDPIN FOUND 0.3'SOUTH OF COR2.40'"SUBJECT TO RIGHTS FOR MAINTANENCEOF SEWER AND WATER LINES, SEE160/168, 174/236"GRAVEL DRIVE USED IN COMMON FOR ACCESSTO EAST STATE STREET AND SHARED BETWEENHOUSE 420 AND NO.422-42418' WIDE EASEMENTSEE 769/80CONCRETEWALL27.5'±PUNCH MARK FOUND0.35' SOUTH OF CORCONCRETEWALLRAILROADTIE WALL3.8'±4.6'±4.2'±20'-8"27'-11"LOT AREA = 12850 SFMAX. LOT COVERAGE- 50%= 6425 SFEXISTING BUILDINGFOOTPRINT - 7714* SF (60%)*NOTE: EXCLUSIVE OFEASEMENTEXISTING BIKE LANEPROPOSEDPERMANENTEASEMENT(1245 SF)SETBACK20'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"5'-1"76'-0"35'-0"71'-3"120'-2"17'-8"~2200 FEET~1000 FEET~1000 FEETPROJECTSITEARGOSSENECAGARAGEGREEN STGARAGECAYUGAGARAGESHAREDPARKINGScale:Project No:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:Copyright Jason K Demarest, Architect301 S. Geneva StreetSuite 101Ithaca, New York 14850p: 607.330.4555 f: 607.330.4508www.jkdarchitect.comAs indicated7/6/2015 11:17:09 AMITHACA, NY 14850C1.00Site PlanROSB01416 - 418 E STATE STEAST STATE LLC7/6/15JKDJKDPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0'20'10'20'40'Scale: 1" = 20'-0" 1" = 20'-0"1Site Plan 1" = 200'-0"2Site Context MapPARKING REQUIREMENTS:BUSINESS USES- 1 SPACE PER 250 SF4111 SF/ 250 = 17 SPACESRESIDENTIAL USES- 1 SPACE PER DWELLING (UP TO 3 BEDROOMS)1 DWELLING UNIT = 1 SPACEBAR/ RESTAURANT USES- 1 SPACE PER 50 NET SF1071SF/ 50 = 22 SPACESTOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 40 SPACES****SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ON-SITE PARKING &SEE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS FOR BALANCEOF PARKING REQUIREMENTZONING MAPZONING NOTES:- ALL USES ARE PERMITTED- LOT SIZE, COVERAGE & SETBACKS ARE EXISTING*NOTE: A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE EXCEEDED LOT COVERAGE LIMITHISTORIC NOTES:- PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO ILPC REVIEW (EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS)B-4R-2aCBD-60CBD-120CBD-100R-3aR-2aRevision ScheduleNumber DescriptionDatePROJECTSITENOTE: BASE SURVEY BY TG MILLER DATED 1/27/15; CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2' 1" = 10'-0"4West Elevation 1" = 10'-0"3South Elevation0'Scale: 1" = 10'-0"10'5'10'20' PROJECTSITEARGOS+/-180' DISTANCE TO USEMEASURED PARCEL TOPARCEL PER ZONINGSHARED PARKINGBar and Restaurant: 22 spaces(Reserved from 4:30PM to 1:30AM)Office: 15 spaces(Reserved from 8:00AM to 5:00PM)PEDESTRIAN WAYScale:Project No:Date:Drawn by:Checked by:Copyright Jason K Demarest, Architect301 S. Geneva StreetSuite 101Ithaca, New York 14850p: 607.330.4555 f: 607.330.4508www.jkdarchitect.com 1" = 30'-0"7/6/2015 11:22:31 AMITHACA, NY 14850C1.01Shared ParkingMapROSB01416 - 418 E STATE STEAST STATE LLC7/6/15JKDJKDPRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONRevision ScheduleNumber Description Date 1" = 30'-0"1Shared Parking Map30'15'0'30'60'Scale: 1" = 30'-0"APPROXIMATE SCALE: Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores A-2 21 32 32 B 30 40 40 R 21 38 38 S-1 19 29 29 1301.7 Summary Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS) 1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 1301.6.2 Building Area 0.51 0.51 0.51 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00 1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 9.00 9.00 9.00 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems -5.00 -5.00 -5.00 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 13.40 13.40 13.40 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 4.00 4.00 4.00 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -4.00 -2.00 -4.00 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Score - Total Value 38.91 40.91 38.91 FS Score ME Score GS Score A-2 39 41 39 Mandatory Scores 21 32 32 Score +/-18 9 7 Pass Yes Yes Yes East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY A-2 Analysis Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3 Construction Type: VB SECTION FORMULA VALUE 1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00 AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40 EBH = Existing Building Height 24 AS = Allowable Height in Stories 1 EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2 1.28 -1 1301.6.2 Building Area A-2 B S-1 Total 0.51 Actual Area 1612 4611 1061 7284 Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 6000 9000 9000 Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 0 0 If = Area Increase due to frontage (see Frontage increase note below)000 At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 6000 9000 9000 Amax = Total area of enitre building 18000 27000 27000 9000 13500 13500 Equation EB13-2: A-2 B S-1 6000 9000 9000 A-2 B S-1 Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 18000 27000 27000 Equation EB13-3: Actual stories 2 9000 13500 13500 Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Equation EB13-4:5.00 7.50 7.50 0.51 0.76 0.76 i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor. n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor. §506.2 Frontage increase. If = Area increase due to frontage. 0 F = Building perimeter which fronts on a public way or open space having 20 feet (6096 mm) open minimum width (feet). 91 P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366 W = Width of public way or open space (feet) in accordance with §506.2.1.30 0 East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is positve. Construction Type Factor shown in Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative. 1 Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on limitations of 506.4 The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1. 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 1301.6.4 0.00 §EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing. 2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708 or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area. 4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with §706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 §EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing. 2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State. X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State. Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 VO = Vertical opening value. 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points. 2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points. 3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points. 4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points. X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points. 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 9.00 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in the Mechanical Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units. X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area. 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems -5.00 1. Category a - None. X 2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to §403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where those systems are provided. 7 7 1 CF = Construction type factor from Table EB1201.6.6(2) PV = Protection value from Table EB1201.6.6(1). 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 X 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered glass panels shall be used. 3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted. 6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable exterior windows. 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 2.00 1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2. 2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d. 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings. 2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1. 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 13.40 Allowable: 200 66 13.4 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 1. Category a - No elevator. 2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall. 3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State. 4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new construction requirements serves all occupied floors. Single-story/NA 0 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 4.00 1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. 2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power failure to the site or building. 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies 0.00 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies. X 2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -4.00 X 1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided. 4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State. 6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided. 3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 NA 0 Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores A-2 21 32 32 B 30 40 40 R 21 38 38 S-1 19 29 29 1301.7 Summary Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS) 1301.6.1 Building Height 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.2 Building Area 0.76 0.76 0.76 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00 1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 5.00 5.00 5.00 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 8.00 8.00 8.00 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50 16.50 16.50 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00 -5.00 -5.00 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Score - Total Value 44.26 44.26 44.26 FS Score ME Score GS Score B 44 44 44 Mandatory Scores 30 40 40 Score +/-14 4 4 Pass Yes Yes Yes East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY B Analysis Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3 Construction Type: VB SECTION FORMULA VALUE 1301.6.1 Building Height 0.00 AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40 EBH = Existing Building Height 24 AS = Allowable Height in Stories 2 EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2 1.28 0 1301.6.2 Building Area A-2 B S-1 Total 0.76 Actual Area 1612 4611 1061 7284 Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 6000 9000 9000 Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 0 0 If = Area Increase due to frontage (see Frontage increase note below)000 At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 6000 9000 9000 Amax = Total area of enitre building 18000 27000 27000 9000 13500 13500 Equation EB13-2: A-2 B S-1 6000 9000 9000 A-2 B S-1 Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 18000 27000 27000 Equation EB13-3: Actual stories 2 9000 13500 13500 Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Equation EB13-4:5.00 7.50 7.50 0.51 0.76 0.76 i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor. n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor. §506.2 Frontage increase. If = Area increase due to frontage. 0 F = Building perimeter which fronts on a public way or open space having 20 feet (6096 mm) open minimum width (feet). 91 P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366 W = Width of public way or open space (feet) in accordance with §506.2.1.30 0 East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is positve. Construction Type Factor shown in Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative. 1 Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on limitations of 506.4 The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1. 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 1301.6.4 0.00 §EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing. 2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708 or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area. 4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with §706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 5.00 §EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing. 2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State. X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State. Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 VO = Vertical opening value. 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points. 2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points. 3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points. 4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points. X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points. 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 8.00 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in the Mechanical Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units. X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area. 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to §403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where those systems are provided. 7 7 1 CF = Construction type factor from Table EB1201.6.6(2) PV = Protection value from Table EB1201.6.6(1). 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 X 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered glass panels shall be used. 3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted. 6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable exterior windows. 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2. 2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d. 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings. 2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1. 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50 Allowable: 200 35 16.5 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 1. Category a - No elevator. 2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall. 3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State. 4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new construction requirements serves all occupied floors. Single-story/NA 0 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00 1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power failure to the site or building. 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00 X 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies. 2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00 1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided. 4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State. 6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided. 3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 NA 0 Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores A-2 21 32 32 B 30 40 40 R-3 21 38 38 S-1 19 29 29 1301.7 Summary Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS) 1301.6.1 Building Height 1.00 1.00 1.00 1301.6.2 Building Area 10.50 10.50 10.50 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00 1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00 6.00 6.00 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50 16.50 16.50 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -10.00 -10.00 -10.00 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -3.00 -1.50 -3.00 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Score - Total Value 41.00 42.50 41.00 FS Score ME Score GS Score R-3 41 42 41 Mandatory Scores 21 38 38 Score +/-20 4 3 Pass Yes Yes Yes East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY R-3 Analysis Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3 Construction Type: VB SECTION FORMULA VALUE 1301.6.1 Building Height 1.00 AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40 EBH = Existing Building Height 24 AS = Allowable Height in Stories 3 EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2 1.28 1 1301.6.2 Building Area R-3 10.50 Actual Area 1112 Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 13710 Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 If = Area Increase due to frontage (see Frontage increase note below)0 At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 13710 Unlimited Area Allowed- ADJUSTED TO EQUAL 50% OF MAX FS SCORE Amax = Total area of enitre building 41130 20565 Equation EB13-2: R-3 13710 R-3 Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 41130 Equation EB13-3: Actual stories 2 20565 Aai/1200 Equation EB13-4:11.43 10.50 i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor. n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor. §506.2 Frontage increase. If = Area increase due to frontage. 0 F = Building perimeter which fronts on a public way or open space having 20 feet (6096 mm) open minimum width (feet). 91 P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366 W = Width of public way or open space (feet) in accordance with §506.2.1.30 0 East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is positve. Construction Type Factor shown in Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative. 1 Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on limitations of 506.4 The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1. 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 1301.6.4 0.00 §EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing. 2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708 or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area. 4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with §706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 §EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing. 2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State. X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State. Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 VO = Vertical opening value. 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points. 2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points. 3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points. 4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points. X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points. 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in the Mechanical Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units. X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area. 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to §403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where those systems are provided. 7 7 1 CF = Construction type factor from Table EB1201.6.6(2) PV = Protection value from Table EB1201.6.6(1). 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 X 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered glass panels shall be used. 3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted. 6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable exterior windows. 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2. X 2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d. 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings. 2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1. 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.50 Allowable: 200 35 16.5 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 1. Category a - No elevator. 2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall. 3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State. 4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new construction requirements serves all occupied floors. Single-story/NA 0 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 0.00 X 1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. 2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power failure to the site or building. 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -10.00 X 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies. 2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers -3.00 1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided. 4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State. 6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided. 3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 NA 0 Table EB1301.8 Mandatory Safety Scores A-2 21 32 32 B 30 40 40 R 21 38 38 S-1 19 29 29 1301.7 Summary Section Safety Parameters Fire Safety (FS) Means of Egress (ME) General Safety (GS) 1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00 -1.00 -1.00 1301.6.2 Building Area 0.76 0.76 0.76 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 4.00 4.00 1301.6.4 Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 7.00 7.00 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 5.00 5.00 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00 6.00 6.00 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 2.00 2.00 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.70 16.70 16.70 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00 1.00 1.00 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00 -5.00 -5.00 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 0.00 0.00 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Score - Total Value 38.46 38.46 38.46 FS Score ME Score GS Score S-1 38 38 38 Mandatory Scores 19 29 29 Score +/-19 9 9 Pass Yes Yes Yes East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY S-1 Analysis Occupancy: A-2, B, S-1, R-3 Construction Type: VB SECTION FORMULA VALUE 1301.6.1 Building Height -1.00 AH = Allowable Height from Table 503 40 EBH = Existing Building Height 24 AS = Allowable Height in Stories 1 EBS = Existing Building Height in Stories 2 1.28 -1 1301.6.2 Building Area A-2 B S-1 Total 0.76 Actual Area 1612 4611 1061 7284 Aa = Allowable Area per Floor 6000 9000 9000 Is = Area Increase due to sprinklers 0 0 0 If = Area Increase due to frontage (see Frontage increase note below)000 At = Tabular Area per floor; Table 503 6000 9000 9000 Amax = Total area of enitre building 18000 27000 27000 9000 13500 13500 Equation EB13-2: A-2 B S-1 6000 9000 9000 A-2 B S-1 Amax = 3 x Aa, Per 506.1 of NYSBC 3 18000 27000 27000 Equation EB13-3: Actual stories 2 9000 13500 13500 Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Aai/1200 Equation EB13-4:5.00 7.50 7.50 0.51 0.76 0.76 i = Value for an individual separated occupancy on a floor. n = Number of separated occupancies on a floor. §506.2 Frontage increase. If = Area increase due to frontage. 0 F = Building perimeter which fronts on a public way or open space having 20 feet (6096 mm) open minimum width (feet). 91 P = Perimeter of entire building (feet). 366 W = Width of public way or open space (feet) in accordance with §506.2.1.30 0 East State LLC 416-418 E State St Ithaca, NY CF = Construction Factor. 1 if AH-EBH is positve. Construction Type Factor shown in Table EB1301.6.6(2) if AH is negative. 1 Aa,max = Allowable area per floor based on limitations of 506.4 The value for the building height shall be the lesser value determined using the following formulas in Section 1301.6.1.1. 1301.6.3 Compartmentation 4.00 1301.6.4 0.00 §EB1201.6.4.1 Categories. The categories for tenant and dwelling unitseparations are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; doors not self-closing or automatic closing. 2. Category b - Fire partitions or floor assembly less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708 or §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. X 3. Category c - Fire partitions with 1-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §708 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State or with only one tenant within the fire area. 4. Category d - Fire barriers with 1-hour but less than 2-hour fireresistance rating constructed in accordance with §706 of the Building Code of New York State and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating constructed in accordance with §711 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Fire barriers and floor assemblies with 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating and constructed in accordance with §706 and §711 of the Building Code of New York State, respectively. 1301.6.5 Corridor Walls 2.00 §EB1201.6.5.1 Categories. The categories for corridor walls are: 1. Category a - No fire partitions; incomplete fire partitions; no doors; or doors not self-closing. 2. Category b - Less than 1-hour fire-resistance rating or not constructed in accordance with §708.4 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - 1-hour to less than 2-hour fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State or without corridors as permitted by §1018 (typo in code says 1013)of the Building Code of New York State. X 4. Category d - 2-hour or greater fire-resistance rating, with doors conforming to §715 of the Building Code of New York State. Tenant and Dwelling Unit Separations 1301.6.6 Vertical Openings 7.00 VO = Vertical opening value. 1301.6.7 HVAC Systems 5.00 1. Category a - Plenums not in accordance with §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. -10 points. 2. Category b - Air movement in egress elements not in accordance with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State. -5 points. 3. Category c - Both Categories a and b are applicable. -15 points. 4. Category d - Compliance of the HVAC system with §1016.4 of the Building Code of New York State and §M602 of the Mechanical Code of New York State. 0 points. X 5. Category e - Systems serving one story; or a central boiler/chiller system without ductwork connecting two or more stories. +5 points. 1301.6.8 Automatic Fire Detection 6.00 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Existing smoke detectors in HVAC systems and maintained in accordance with the Fire Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Smoke detectors in HVAC systems. The detectors are installed in accordance with the requirements for new buildings in the Mechanical Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Smoke detectors throughout all floor areas other than individual sleeping units, tenant spaces and dwelling units. X 5. Category e - Smoke detectors installed throughout the fire area. 1301.6.9 Fire Alarm Systems 0.00 X 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - Fire alarm system with manual fire alarm boxes in accordance with §907.3 of the Building Code of New York State and alarm notification appliances in accordance with §907.9 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Fire alarm system in accordance with §907 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Category c plus a required emergency voice/alarm communications system and a fire command station that conforms to §403.8 of the Building Code of New York State and contains the emergency voice/alarm communications system controls, fire department communication system controls, and any other controls specified in §911 of the Building Code of New York State where those systems are provided. 7 7 1 CF = Construction type factor from Table EB1201.6.6(2) PV = Protection value from Table EB1201.6.6(1). 1301.6.10 Smoke Control 0.00 X 1. Category a - None. 2. Category b - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Openings are provided in exterior walls at the rate of 20 square feet (1.86 m2) per 50 linear feet (15 240 mm) of exterior wall in each story and distributed around the building perimeter at intervals not exceeding 50 feet (15 240 mm). Such openings shall be readily openable from the inside without a key or separate tool and shall be provided with ready access thereto. In lieu of operable openings, clearly and permanently marked tempered glass panels shall be used. 3. Category c - One enclosed exit stairway, with ready access thereto, from each occupied floor of the building. The stairway has operable exterior windows, and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 4. Category d - One smokeproof enclosure and the building has openings in accordance with Category b. 5. Category e - The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. Each fire area is provided with a mechanical airhandling system designed to accomplish smoke containment. Return and exhaust air shall be moved directly to the outside without recirculation to other fire areas of the building under fire conditions. The system shall exhaust not less than six air changes per hour from the fire area. Supply air by mechanical means to the fire area is not required. Containment of smoke shall be considered as confining smoke to the fire area involved without migration to other fire areas. Any other tested and approved design that will adequately accomplish smoke containment is permitted. 6. Category f - Each stairway shall be one of the following: a smokeproof enclosure in accordance with §1019.1.8 of the Building Code of New York State; pressurized in accordance with §909.20.5 of the Building Code of New York State; or shall have operable exterior windows. 1301.6.11 Means of Egress Capacity 0.00 1. Category a - Compliance with the minimum required means-of-egress capacity or number of exits is achieved through the use of a fire escape in accordance with §EB605.3.1.2. 2. Category b - Capacity of the means of egress complies with §1004 of the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Capacity of the means of egress is equal to or exceeds 125 percent of the required means-of-egress capacity, the means of egress complies with the minimum required width dimensions specified in the Building Code of New York State, and the number of exits complies with the minimum number required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - The number of exits provided exceeds the number of exits required by §1019 of the Building Code of New York State. Exits shall be located a distance apart from each other equal to not less than that specified in §1015 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - The area being evaluated meets both Categories c and d. 1301.6.12 Dead Ends 2.00 1. Category a - Dead end of 35 feet (10 670 mm) in nonsprinklered buildings or 70 feet (21 340 mm) in sprinklered buildings. 2. Category b - Dead end of 20 feet (6096 mm); or 50 feet (15 240 mm) in Group B in accordance with §1016.3, Exception 2 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - No dead ends; or ratio of length to width (l/w) is less than 2.5:1. 1301.6.13 Maximum Exit Access Travel Distance 16.70 Allowable: 200 33 16.7 1301.6.14 Elevator Control 0.00 1. Category a - No elevator. 2. Category b - Any elevator without Phase I and II recall. 3. Category c - All elevators with Phase I and II recall as required by the Fire Code of New York State. 4. Category d - All meet Category c; or Category b where permitted to be without recall; and at least one elevator that complies with new construction requirements serves all occupied floors. Single-story/NA 0 1301.6.15 Means of Egress Emergency Lighting 1.00 1. Category a - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs not provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Means-of-egress lighting and exit signs provided with emergency power in accordance with §2702 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Emergency power provided to means-of-egress lighting and exit signs, which provides protection in the event of power failure to the site or building. 1301.6.16 Mixed Occupancies -5.00 X 1. Category a - Minimum 1-hour fire barriers between occupancies. 2. Category b - Fire barriers between occupancies in accordance with §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 3. Category c - Fire barriers between occupancies having a fire resistance rating of not less than twice that required by §508.3.3 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.17 Automatic Sprinklers 0.00 1. Category a - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 2. Category b - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinkler protection is not provided or the sprinkler system design is not adequate for the hazard protected in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. X 3. Category c - Sprinklers are not required; none are provided. 4. Category d - Sprinklers are required in a portion of the building; sprinklers are provided in such portion; the system is one that complied with the code at the time of installation and is maintained and supervised in accordance with §903 of the Building Code of New York State. 5. Category e - Sprinklers are required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State. 6. Category f - Sprinklers are not required throughout; sprinklers are provided throughout in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Building Code of New York State 1301.6.18 Standpipes 0.00 1. Category a - Standpipes are required; standpipe is not provided or the standpipe system design is not in compliance with Section 905.3 of the Building Code of New York State. X 2. Category b - Standpipes are not required; none are provided. 3. Category c - Standpipes are required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 4. Category d - Standpipes are not required; standpipes are provided in accordance with §905 of the Building Code of New York State. 1301.6.19 Incidental Use Area Protection 0.00 NA 0     APPENDIX  A:  AREA  OF  EASEMENT,  SHADED  IN  ORANGE.         MAGUIRE FIAT CHRYSLER ADDITION & RENOVATIONS SA Project No. 14117 July 10, 2015 List of Documents for Sign Variance Application: Appeal # 2992 Board of Zoning Appeals - Application for Appeal pgs. 1-2, dated June 18, 2015 Application Item No. 4 - Reason for Appeal, dated July 7, 2015 Signage Calculation, dated July 7, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals Worksheet, dated July 7, 2015 Owner's Authorization Form, dated June 18, 2015 Notice of Appeal, dated June 19, 2015 Notice of Appeal Attachment, dated July 7, 2015 List of Property Owners within 200'-0", dated June 18, 2015 Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated June 18, 2015 Drawings Custom 20' Totem - Fiat Freestanding Sign, dated May, 9, 2011 L1 - Site Layout Plan, Revision No. 5, dated July 7 , 2015 Boundary & Topographic Map, dated September 12, 2013 A3 - Elevations, dated July 7, 2015 CITY OF'ITHACA 108 East Green Street - 3rd Floor lthaca, New York 1485G5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLAI\tlilNG, BIIILDING, ZOhING & ECONOn/ilC DEVELOPMENT Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Telephone: 607 -274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION 1. TYPE OF APPEAL: 2. Property Area Variance Special Permit Use Variance Sign Variance Action, decision, or interpretation of Zoning Officer Address: 9o8- 916 EuMTAA EaAT>Use District: 6t)-2 owner's Name: l{A/uvee E.Lwrvl E$r*?|geS , ut Owner's Address: So4 E, MEADaA 6T.City: tTt-|Aal State:xlv 3. Appellant:aFoHAc' i4. Sautr r*;ll-le; Abr- 9Atav-ev A%tlrr€anrFE (Name of Appellant) Address: ZAo e, SrArE qT. Signature of Appellant STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF TOMPKINS Swom to this \ 7&auy of xAsHYlo.x6NDtNE Not ry PuUiq Strrc of ltler Yort Nc.OIOt(626n'6t . -Qurfi fi od ia Fonpkinr gfurty Condreioir Erfrrcr Aqu*2O, 2016 * Note: In any case in which an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals seeking an interpretationo special permit, or variance on behalfofcertain property is submitted and signed by someone other than the current record owner ofthat property, this form must be submitted along with the appeal. APPEAL #: HEARING DATE: Aua.rtr .I,T5 BUILDING PERMIT #: 2216L RECEIPT #: City: rrfl !4A State: r.tY Telephone:bo1.Z11 . o*qq E-MAiI: T},IS A SAAI LILEU. C2Y1 4. Attach Reason for Appeal: (see instruction sheet) 5. Appellant Certification: I certify that the information submitted with the appeal is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have read, and amfamiliar with those sections of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance that apply to this appeal, (including Section 325-40, which describes the powers and duties of .the Board of Zgyting Appeals). I also aclcnowledge that the Board of Zoning Appeals may visit the property glla t spgetfcally/permit ;uch visits.Lfu LlIf) x ?t*******:ltr*t(****************OfftCn USn ONly*********:t:t:t:l?trr?trr:t?t***rstststsrs**** 1. Ordinance Section(s) for the Appeal: page2 Zoning Ordinance Section being Appealed Sign Ordinance Section being Appealed o 9325- o 9325- o 9325- o 9325- o 9325- o 9325- o 9272_ . s272- . 5272- . s272- o s272- . s272- 2. Application of SEQR determination: _Type I _Type 2 _Unlisted 3. Environmental Assessment form used: Short Environmental Assessment Fonn (SEAF) Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Lead Agency Determination of Significance Completed by the Planning Division at preliminary hearing for Site Plan Review 4. A previous appeal ! nur tPnasnot been made for this proposal: Appeal No._, dated Appeal No._, dated Appeal No._, dated Appeal No._, dated 5. Notes or Special Conditions: Application Item No. 4 - Reason for Appeal Name of Project: Maguire Fiat Chrysler Addition & Renovations Location of Property: 308 - 318 Elmira Road Property Owner:Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC Date: July 10, 2015 Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC is planning an addition for Fiat at their Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram dealership at 308-318 Elmira Road. As part of the Fiat national branding standards there is a required freestanding sign. Currently the site has two freestanding 22' height signs on site, the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram sign that was installed in 2011 at the former 318 Elmira Road address and the obsolete Car Corner sign that was left in place on the former 312 Elmira Road site. As part of the previous project constructed in 2011, 312 and 318 Elmira Road were combined. As part of the related addition project being planned 312-318 Elmira Road will be combined with 308 Elmira Road. Two entry driveways will be removed and a new entry driveway will be constructed at the Fiat addition. The Car Corner sign to be removed is near a driveway that was removed as part of the 2011 project. In summary, the proposed plan would keep the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep Ram sign at the southwest driveway, remove the Car Corner sign and install a new Fiat sign at the new driveway. Under Sign Ordinance Section 272-7 (A) two related sign variances are sought for the proposed freestanding Fiat sign as follows: 1. Freestanding Sign Quantity: The site would have 2 freestanding signs whereas only 1 freestanding sign is permitted. In lieu of installing the new Fiat sign at the location of the existing Car Corner sign, a variance is sought to permanently remove the Car Corner sign and to install the new Fiat sign at the new driveway. Because the Car Corner sign is "grandfathered" it can be replaced but it cannot be relocated under the Sign Ordinance. 2. Freestanding Sign Area: The combined area of the 2 freestanding signs at 64 SF is 7 SF greater than permitted under the Sign Ordinance at 57 SF. The existing Car Corner sign to be removed is approximately 50 SF. The proposed Fiat sign is 16 SF, so the total freestanding signage area at the site will be reduced from approximately 98 SF to 64 SF. In making the determination we request that the Board of Appeals consider the following health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted: Page 2 Application Item No. 4 - Reason for Appeal Maguire Fiat Chrysler Addition & Renovations July 10, 2015 1. There will be a desirable change in the character of the neighborhood as this is a highly visible site at a very busy intersection in Ithaca, and it is our opinion that the installation of this new freestanding sign will be logical with the site and create a safer entry condition and will remove an abandoned sign for a business that no longer exists. 2. Due to the branding standards of the various car manufacturers there is no way to merge the signs into one freestanding sign, hence the reasoning for two separate freestanding signs. 3. Despite the ordinance limiting a lot to only 1 freestanding sign, we feel that due to the combination of the 3 lots (originally 3 lots) and the fact that currently there are two existing freestanding signs on the property that our request to remove 1 sign and relocate at new sign at a more logical location that the variance sought is not substantial. 4. It is our opinion that the variance would have no effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as the site would function in virtually the same manner as it has in the past. MAGUIRE FIAT CHRYSLER ADDITION & RENOVATIONS SA Project No. 14117 July 10, 2015 Signage Calculation Wall Signs Size (length x width) Area Proposed Fiat Sign 3'-11 1/4" X 3'-11 1/4" 16 SF Existing Chrysler Logo 9'-9" x 2'-6" 24 SF Existing Dodge Letters 8'-10 1/2" x 11 1/8" 8 SF Existing Maguire Letters 11'-11 7/8" x 2'-0" 24 SF Existing Jeep Logo 5'-11 1/2" x 2'-4 3/4" 13.6 SF Existing Ram Logo 8'-10 1/2" x 2'-4" 20.5 SF Existing Mopar Service Sign 11'-11 1/2" x 2'-11 1/4" 36 SF TOTAL WALL SIGNAGE 142.1 SF Allowable wall signage: Building frontage @ 113.25' x 1.5/LF = 170 SF Allowable wall signage @ 170 SF less proposed @ 142.1 SF equals 27.9 SF less than allowable. Therefore, proposed wall signs are in compliance with Zoning Freestanding Signs Size (length x width) Area Proposed Fiat 3'-11 1/4" x 3'-11 1/4" 16 SF Existing Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep Ram 6'-3" x 7'-9" 48 SF TOTAL FREESTANDING SIGNAGE 64 SF Allowable freestanding signage: Building frontage @113.25' x 0.5/LF = 57 SF Allowable freestanding sign @ 57 SF less proposed @ 64 SF equals 7 SF more than allowable, so the proposed freestanding sign for Fiat is not in compliance with Zoning. Therefore a sign variance is required. TOTAL SIGNAGE (Wall Signs + Freestanding Signs) 206.1 SF Maximum Signage Allowed in SW-2 250 SF Allowable total signage @ 250 SF less proposed @ 206.1 SF equals 43.9 SF less than allowable, therefore, proposed total signage is in compliance with Zoning. Maguire Fiat Chysler Board of Zoning Appeals Worksheet Appeal Number BZA-2989 Address 308 and 318 Elmira Road Use District SW-2 Date 7/7/2015 Applicant Thomas Schickel Owner Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC Application Type:Area Variance Column Number 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14/15 16 Column Title Use Accessory Use Off-Street Parking Off-Street Loading Lot Area (Sq. Feet) Lot Width (Feet) Number of Stories Height in Feet % of Lot Coverage Front Yard Side Yard Other Side Yard Rear yard: % of depth or number of feet, whichever is less Minimum Building Height Existing Condition and Use Motor Vehicle Sales & Service 25 3 74,052 402.5'2 25 16%57.3'39.6'48'54.66' District Regulations for Existing Service Business District 11 2 3000 35% coverage by building 5 60 60% 35% of street frontage occupied by building 15' -34' from curb None None 15% or 20' but not less than 10'None Note Non- Conforming Conditions OK N/A OK OK OK Def.OK OK OK Def.OK OK OK N/A Proposed Condition and/or Use Motor Vehicle Sales & Service 25 3 94,482 476.22 2 25 14%57.3'39.6'295'54.66' District Regulation for Proposed Service Business District 23 2 3000 35% coverage by building 5 60 60% 35% of street frontage occupied by building 15' -34' from curb None None 15% or 20' but not less than 10'None Note Non- Conforming Conditions for Proposal OK N/A OK OK OK Def. (pending PB approval of architectural wall) OK OK Def. by 23.3'OK OK OK N/A Notes: CITY OF'ITHACA 108 East Green Street - 3rd Floor lthaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLAI\IITING, BUILDING, ZOITING & ECONONflC DEVELOPMENT Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Telephone: 607 -2? 4-6550 Fax: 607 -274-6559 Email: cpyott@cityofithaca.org OWIIER'S AUTHORIZATION FORM DATE: TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,Ithaca, New York: APPEAL #: I (We) Ml.Arrrl-E FlFrur 4kec€grEE6 l-uc of (Name) ITI{ALA , (M""t.tp"ttt$ rJeut Owner of the property at 368 - 318 €uW?+, PoAD 41o ELt4taA BOAD (Street Address) Y,oalv Haso (State/Zip) (Street & Number) I am the sole owner of the above-mentioned property. X tnis property is also owned ay Pl\quteli-, and I have a Power of Attorney to authorize this appeal (attach POA). STATE OF NEW YORK) couNTY oF TOMPKINS) Sworn to this ltfi day of DlAltNE M. McGARRy Notary Public, State of New york No.01MC4817886 Qualified in Tompkins Countv -, Commission Expires July 3.t, Zciltr- Note to all those sienine this form: (1) Owners authorizing another to present an appeal on their behalf should be aware that the Board may, in granting relief, add reasonable conditions which then become binding on the property. (2) Especially where a variance is being sought, the owner may be the only person with detailed information about the property that is essential to the appeal.In such a case authorizing another person to appeal may be detrimental to the appeal unless the owner is either present at the hearing or sends another person fully prepared to answer questions about the property and the feasibility of using it consistent with the zoning ordinance. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street - 3rd Floor lthaca, New York 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLAI\NrNG, BUILDTNG, ZOltrNG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Telephone: 607 -27 4-6550 Fax: 607-274-6559 Email: cpyott@cityofithaca. org - NOTICE OF APPEAL - REGARDING ZONING OR SIGN ORDINANCE CITY OF ITHACA. NEW YORK APPEAL NO. TO: Owners of property within 200 feet of 3O6- 3tg € vl.lt?L ?-oF\ and others interested. FRoM: r v,+ te. ec*rcvev l*ncfurcevlffiffafffue property named above, in a(n) 6.t)zzone. (name ofperson or agency making appeal) (frn,lt 1% e, €r,' e 31, lTl-lLLA.{l tqg9 6l 17 !201' Address Date TrTVtr REGARDING:(check appropriate spaces) Area Variance Special Permit Use Variance Sign Variance Action, decision, or interpretation of Zoning Officer City regulations require that you be notified of this appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)' as described in the attached letter and provide the opportunity for you to comment on it and/or attend the meetings listed below. Anyone who is considered an interested party may speak for or against the appeal at the meetings listed below or you may submit a written statement to the BZA before the designated meeting. There is a time limit of three (3) minutes in which each interested party may address the BZA during the public hearing portion of the meeting. The Board of Zoning Appeals bases its decision primarily on the written evidence submitted and presented to the Board, the testimony gf the interested parties, and on zoning and legal considerations. The written case record will be available for review beginning one week before the scheduled BZA meeting held at City Hall, 108 E. Green Street on the 3'o floor. This case has also been referred to the City's Planning and Development Board that will advise the BZA if granting the relief sought by the appellant will affect long-term planning objectives. The date of the Planning Board's meeting regarding this appeal is also listed below. The Plannine Board will consider this case on Jlul ?8 , ?at5 at 6:00 P.M. in Common Council Chambers in Citv Hall. The Board of Zoning Appeals will consider this case on AA4$gr A ,?tti at 7:00 P.M. in Collmon Council C bers in City Hall. Signature of Appellant Notice of Appeal: Regarding Zoning Ordinance, City of Ithaca, New York From: Thomas M. Schickel, dba Schickel Architecture Regarding: Application Item No. 4 - Reason for Appeal Name of Project: Maguire Fiat Chrysler Addition & Renovations Location of Property: 308 - 318 Elmira Road, Ithaca, New York Property Owner:Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC Date: July 10, 2015 To : Property Owners of property within 200 feet of 308-318 Elmira Road and others interested: Maguire Family Enterprises, LLC is planning an addition for Fiat at their Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram dealership at 308-318 Elmira Road. As part of the Fiat national branding standards there is a required freestanding sign. Currently the site has two freestanding 22' height signs on site, the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram sign that was installed in 2011 at the former 318 Elmira Road address and the obsolete Car Corner sign that was left in place on the former 312 Elmira Road site. As part of the previous project constructed in 2011, 312 and 318 Elmira Road were combined. As part of the related addition project being planned 312-318 Elmira Road will be combined with 308 Elmira Road. Two entry driveways will be removed and a new entry driveway will be constructed at the Fiat addition. The Car Corner sign to be removed is near a driveway that was removed as part of the 2011 project. In summary, the proposed plan would keep the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep Ram sign at the southwest driveway, remove the Car Corner sign and install a new Fiat sign at the new driveway. Under Sign Ordinance Section 272-7 (A) two related sign variances are sought for the proposed freestanding Fiat sign as follows: 1. Freestanding Sign Quantity: The site would have 2 freestanding signs whereas only 1 freestanding sign is permitted. In lieu of installing the new Fiat sign at the location of the existing Car Corner sign, a variance is sought to permanently remove the Car Corner sign and to install the new Fiat sign at the new driveway. Because the Car Corner sign is "grandfathered" it can be replaced but it cannot be relocated under the Sign Ordinance. 2. Freestanding Sign Area: The combined area of the 2 freestanding signs at 64 SF is 7 SF greater than permitted under the Sign Ordinance at 57 SF. The existing Car Corner sign to be removed is approximately 50 SF. The proposed Fiat sign is 16 SF, so the total freestanding signage area at the site will be reduced from approximately 98 SF to 64 SF. Page 2 Notice of Appeal - Regarding Zoning Ordinance, City of Ithaca, New York Application Item No. 4 - Reason for Appeal Maguire Fiat Chrysler Addition & Renovations July 10, 2015 In making the determination we request that the Board of Appeals consider the following health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted: 1. There will be a desirable change in the character of the neighborhood as this is a highly visible site at a very busy intersection in Ithaca, and it is our opinion that the installation of this new freestanding sign will be logical with the site and create a safer entry condition and will remove an abandoned sign for a business that no longer exists. 2. Due to the branding standards of the various car manufacturers there is no way to merge the signs into one freestanding sign, hence the reasoning for two separate freestanding signs. 3. Despite the ordinance limiting a lot to only 1 freestanding sign, we feel that due to the combination of the 3 lots (originally 3 lots) and the fact that currently there are two existing freestanding signs on the property that our request to remove 1 sign and relocate at new sign at a more logical location that the variance sought is not substantial. 4. It is our opinion that the variance would have no effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as the site would function in virtually the same manner as it has in the past. MAGUIRE FIAT CHRYSLER ADDITION & RENOVATIONS SA Project No. 14117 June 18, 2015 List of Property Owners within 200'-0" CITY OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (SEAF) Proiect Inforniation (to be completed by applicant or project sponsor) Wr 1. Applicant/Sponsor: firoMae t^, lnr-rr,g,e dba. sav\t()t€w Pht*l neCl^Ce 2. ProjectName: s AAUrg€- FIFT ^Aat9u'* 3. Projectlocation: 368-BrG i=vvl\?E ?dAD 4. Is Proposed Action: dN.* DExpansion DModification/Alteration 5. Describe project briefly:lFI6At t- 221-ort trf&.>abND-rxJ4 F|AT , rarar..r . AT I,,IEW DA|VEttJAf .Keuytot/Lg,ihha 6. Precise Location (road intersectiofls, prominent landmarks, etc..,^or provide map): { tour>rutacrt oC ra{€ 1.r'r€^StEanrJ oF ELMICA E-iD. FJD 6. H€ADerl€f . 7.Amount of Land Affected: Initially: Z8 Acreso Ultimately. Z-6; Acres o 8. Will proposed action comply with existingzoning or other existing land use restrictions? E Yes dNo If no, describe briefly: aFtLy aFrg Free+,rrsb rr.l4 3tarJ rb A/"r'vaAg> ?El- Zor,lrJ.l/.. 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project: D Residential D Industrial O Agricultural D Parkland/Open Space ElCommercial tr Other Describe: €ularGt F+eD t9 ?Frr-raF-tu.Y 4aF^MeF<-lAL t.rtet trlDrrlr DurAr E,$tr^J.€,t+ a.$ e+roePtNA ?l.Az.Ar. 10. Does action involve a permit/approval or funding, now or ultimately, from governmental agency (federal/state/local): d Yes D No If yes, list agency name and permiVapproval type'. Lrtt or |7Hr6'5 - gqFl ggTvttf Fcl.la aF zoFtA4 t??Fru+: grarl \rFPAiraa 1 l. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? D Yes dNo If yes, list agency name and permit/approval type: 12. As a result of proposed action, will existing permit/approval require modification? D Yes dNo I certify the information provided, PREPARER'S SIGNATURE:DATE. JdNe ft.zot9 PREPARER'S TITLE: ?Bril4r P A L REPRESENTING: |LA,ct/'Ew . FP;H ttEetzr€E 1 1050 Rout e 2 -6-11Somerville, NJRDR Fullerton3'-11 ¼"3'-11 ¼"5'-3"5'-2 5/8"5'-2 5/8"3'-11"4'-9 ½"20'-0"Fiat 20' Totem95.83 Square FeetScale: ¼"=1'Custom 20' Totem- Logo to be .118" formed face with screen printed vinyl on first surface.- Panels to be .125" curved aluminum cladding- Base to have .125" aluminum reveal- Sign illuminated with four (4) F60/T12/DL/HO fluorescent lampsPMS 7427 AluminumRevision #: Address:Date: City, ST:Designer: Dealer Name: 2060 Lakeside Centre WayKnoxville, TN 37922865 . 692 . 4058www.principle-group.us.com5-9-1114113 Broadway ExtensionOklahoma City, OKFIAT of Edmond