Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-22-15 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda
CITY OF ITHACA xT q 108 E. Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,NY 14850-5690 Q. C� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning &Economic Development JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 If you have a disability&would like specific APPLICANT OVERHEAD PROJECTOR NOTE: accommodation to participate, NOTICE OF MEETING The City only has a VGA plug/cable OEMavailable to connect to our overhead ® projector. If you need to connect another ®� way, you will need to provide your own ADAPTOR. (Macs & many newer, lighter please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by laptops may not have a VGA port.) 12:00 p.m.,the day before the meeting. :�t;�����):�J The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on SEPTEMBER 22"D, 2015 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY. AGENDA ITEM Start Time 1. Agenda Review 6:00 2. Special Order of Business:Comprehensive Plan —Phase 2 (Megan Wilson,Senior Planner) 6:01 3. Privilege of the Floor (3-minute maximum per person — if you will be speaking about a project 6:20 with a scheduled PUBLIC HEARING below b, you are highly encouraged to speak at that time) 4. Site Plan Review A. Project: State Street Triangle Project (Mixed-Use Housing& Retail) 6:40 Location: 301 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd. Applicant: Michael Orsak for Campus Advantage Actions: ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ CEQR Discussion ❑ Design Review Committee Meeting Project Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with a mixed-use building having 216,434 GFS (reduced from 288,845), with approximately 12,341 SF of new ground-floor retail space, 2,029 SF of which is anticipated to be a restaurant. Upper floors will have a mix of unit types (1-bedroom/1-bath to 5- bedroom/4-bath) for a total of 232 units with approximately 582 bedrooms (reduced from 240 units with 620 bedrooms). Most of the building is 11 stories and 116' tall; however, portions are stepped down to 95 and 85 feet in height. The targeted market is primarily college students. The ground level includes a loading/delivery area with vehicular access provided from N. Aurora Street and the below-grade level includes a trash area with vehicular access from Green St. 35 parking spaces will be eliminated, with only limited on-site temporary parking 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"), §176-4 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. B. Project: Four Multi-Family Dwellings—"Pocket Neighborhood 7:40 Location: 215-221 Spencer St. Applicant: Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative,for PPM Homes Actions: 711 Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA Project Description: The applicant proposes to build a new multi-family"pocket neighborhood" on a hillside site between W. Spencer St. and W. Cayuga St. The project will include four buildings, each of which will be 3 stories tall and contain 3 units (12 units total). A 12-car parking area is proposed with access off W. Cayuga Street. Site circulation will be organized with a series of landscaped stairs and terraces connecting through the site. The project also includes lighting, retaining walls, and landscaping. The project is in the 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. C. Project: Site Improvements 8:00 Location: 416 E. State St. Applicant: Scott Whitham Actions: O Declaration of Lead Agency O PUBLIC HEARING Project Description: The applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of rear deck and stairs connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, the addition of a curb-cut on State St. and a circular drive, the addition of a 3-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 E. State Street, so that 37 parking spaces would be allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") §617.4 (11), and is subject to environmental review. D. Project: Hotel Ithaca Renovations 8:30 Location: 222 S. Cayuga St. Applicant: David Hart Actions: O Amended Negative Declaration of Significance Project Description: A project on this site was approved on 7/24/12. The applicant has since redesigned the project and now seeks Site Plan Approval for a new proposal. The new proposal is for construction of a five- story wing with first- and second-floor connections to the existing building. These connections will create a new pre-function area on the north side of the existing ballroom, new break-out rooms, and a new fitness center. Site improvements will include new landscaping, walkways, and site furnishings. Vehicular circulation will remain the same, but parking throughout the site will be reorganized, resulting in a reduction from 106 to 97 spaces. Site Demolition will include removal of the north and west multi-story wings, as well as paving and some landscaping. The project is in the CDB-100 Zoning District and requires Design Review. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), §176-4 B.(1) (h.)(4) and (1) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), §617.4 (11). The Lead Agency will amend the Negative Declaration issued on 3/27/12. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). E. SKETCH PLAN: 815 S.Aurora St. —87-Unit Housing Project 9:00 "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 2 S. Zoning Appeals 9:20 • #2994,Area Variance,215-221 W. Spencer St. • #2999,Area Variance, 1106 N.Cayuga St • #3003,Area Variance,209-215 Dryden Rd. • #3004,Area Variance,701&705 N.Aurora St. • #3005,Area Variance, 123-127,133,135-139 E.State St. (Harold's Square) 6. Old/New Business 9:30 A. December 2015 Planning Board Schedule B. Interim Design Guidelines for Collegetown & Downtown C. Recommendation to Board of Public Works Re: Railing Height on Cascadilla Creek 7. Reports 9:45 A. Planning Board Chair(verbal) B. Director of Planning& Development(verbal) C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal) 8. Approval of Minutes: 6/23/15, 6/30/15(Special Meeting),&/or7/28/15 (time permitting) 9:55 9. Adjournment 9:56 ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE Site Plan Review&Subdivision Applications(and Related Documents) Site Plan Review application documents are accessible electronically via the"Document Center"on the City web site (www.citvofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under"Planning&Development">"Site Plan Review Project Applications,"and in the relevant year/month folder. Subdivision application materials can be similarly located,but in the"Subdivision Applications"folder. Zoning Appeal Materials are also accessible electronically via the"Document Center"on the City web site,under"Board of Zoning Appeals." Agenda You may access this agenda(which will include attachments)by going to the"Agenda Center"on the City web site (www.citvofithaca.org/agendacenter),under"Planning&Development Board." For ease-of-access,a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda will always be accessible on the Planning Board home page:http://www.cityofith aca.org/354/Planning-Development-Board. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 3 CITY OF ITHACA O ° Tx`g 108 E. Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca,NY 14850-5690 Fo 0 ©00 °x DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT U o° mg Goo "C Division of Planning&Economic Development ,yc09POBRtE����� JOANN CORNISH,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org TO: Planning and Development Board FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner DATE: September 16, 2015 RE: Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan will include more detailed neighborhood and thematic plans that build upon Plan Ithaca. There are numerous plans to be completed as part of Phase II; Plan Ithaca identifies several thematic plans and many neighborhoods are in need of updated plans. Work on Phase II will begin in early 2016, and Planning staff will focus on preparing two plans. Common Council will soon determine its top priorities for this next phase and will consider a recommendation from the Planning Board as it makes this decision. As its final task, the Comprehensive Plan Committee prepared a recommendation of its priorities for Phase II as well as the top 20 recommendations from Plan Ithaca that it believes are the most important for the City to implement. During its consideration of Phase II priorities, the Committee referenced the General Neighborhood Map, a list of thematic plans identified in Plan Ithaca, and a list of previous City plans. All of these materials are included for your review. Staff will attend the September 22nd Planning Board meeting to discuss priorities for Phase II. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at mwilson e,cityofithaca.org or 274- 6560. CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Suite 202 Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Ogg In OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER �j��lATEO� Telephone: 607j274-6530 Fax: 607/274-6587 To: Planning & Development Board Lisa Nicholas, Planner From: Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer Date: September 18, 2015 Re: Site Plan Review projects for September 2015 meeting Hotel Ithaca Renovations,222 South Cayuga Street I'd suggest that the new addition to the north have a direct sidewalk connection to the public sidewalk along Cayuga Street, in addition to the one shown connecting to the driveway. Also, the benches along Cayuga Street are shown in the City right of way. They should be pushed back to be on the property or the applicant can apply to use City property in accordance with Section 170 of the City Code. Similarly, the wrap around driveway on Clinton Street seems to be in the right of way. If there isn't an agreement for this already, one will be required before construction. Site Improvements,416-418 East State Street It's not entirely clear how this driveway would work-is the uphill curb cut an ingress only?And the downhill one is egress only?Are vehicles in the parking spaces expected to back up in to the curved driveway and pull into the street head first, or are people backing out into the street? How would this be signed? It is non-standard. State Street Triangle Project,301 East State/MLK Jr. Street The revised transportation impact assessment/trip generation analysis from August 2015 is acceptable (though it still incorrectly states the functional classification of Green &Seneca Streets). Though there are still many details to discuss about the sidewalks and the proposal to relocate the curbline, I don't see a significant negative environmental impact from this project. Four Multi-Family Dwellings,215-221 West Spencer Street I do not see any negative environmental impacts to the transportation system. Page 1 of 1 An Equal Oppormnity Employer with commitment to workforce diversification." Z0 ■ Gener I Neighborhood M p Legend WF �m City Boundary TOWN OF I ITHACA - - �- _ _ _ _ mom Waterway r _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CITY OF ITHACA , Renwick Slope Park/Natural Area ,1 I ` Cayuga Lake ♦ 1 1 Palmer Woods 1 ♦ - 1 ` Allan Treman Marina Stewart Park 04 1 Treman Marina M ME ME MENEEn M No vessom NO ME ME I � , I I1,00 Newman Golf Course Cass ParkRN TA I I Cayuga Inlet Ithaca Falls Natural Area I I 1 I I I I Fall Creek Gorge Fall Creek I I 1 I � 1 1 I 1 I I rn ark nley ark I _n S, Woods LE - LI 11 l r I Md Oct us Cliffs 4� mL ST I I I I ` 1 ` i pso ParkHILL I Con Park I I I I 1 ICascadilla Creek Cascadilla Gorge IL 1 I I I , Dry n oad Park ewitt Park indley Park p 1 Maplewood P k I 1 ' w Bryant r McDaniels Park lu U1 AM= A% Sixmile Creek4 1 1 0 R & I I a� I I � A I Titus Triangle ` r - __ No No EMEm_ ME Iood Street Park Six Mile Creek Valley it I Baker P CITY OF ITHACA I111wmvmM ME ME SIEMENS No No wommon ME ME sommus! NO 1 � _ _ _ _ _ TOWN OF ITHACA _ _ _ UNOM _ _ MEEM•j INS / � I 10 to I 1 N,10 I ,♦ L I _40or Neg W0M00'4%. / /� I •� 110 00 4000, South Hill Swamp Buttermilk Creek Gorge and Inlet Valley Slope N NTH 0 1 ,500 3,000 Feet 1 :7,000 NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 Datum "v'. 000fol000 '� Data Source: City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, 2013 'y`o9poRATEo Map Prepared by: City of Ithaca GIS Program, June, 2015 7/20/15 EXISTING CITY PLANS Plan Date Ado ted/Endorsed Nei bborbood Plans Colle etown Urban Plan& Conceptual Desigg Guidelines 2009 Turning the Corner: A Vision for the Northside Neighborhood 2003 Gun Hill Area 2003 Southwest Area Land Use Plan 2001 Southwest Natural Area Master Plan 2001 West Hill Master Plan 1992 Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee 1992 Southside Neighborhood Plan Not com leted Design Plans dam'Design Guidelines West End Urban Design Plan 1999 Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow 2000 Street Corridor Northside Design Study 1998 Downtown Design Plan 1997 Inlet Island Urban Design Plan 2001 Tbematic Plans New York State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: Cayuga Lake 2006 Waterfront Plan Evaluation of Six Point Traffic Plan 2001 City Parks Inventory 1998 Update in Progress Ithaca Bicycle Plan (2001 Amendment) 1997 Draft Transportation Plan Not com leted Draft Trails Master Plan Not com leted PHASE II THEMATIC PLANS IDENTIFIED IN PLAN ITHACA 1. Housing Strategy 2. City Transportation Plan 3. Park System Plan 4. Natural Areas Management Plan 5. Trails Master Plan COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE August 17, 2015 PRIORITY PLANS FOR PHASE II Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan will consist of thematic plans, identified in Plan Ithaca, and more detailed neighborhood plans. After reviewing the lists of previously completed plans and plans identified in Plan Ithaca, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended the following plans to be top priorities in Phase II. The plans are listed in order, as ranked by the Committee. Thematic Plans 1. Housing Strategy a. Recommendation 5.1B: As part of Phase II of Plan Ithaca, prepare a housing strategy to identify specific ways to increase housing supply and decrease housing costs. b. All recommendations from Section 5.1 Housing should be considered as part of the housing strategy. 2. Transportation Plan a. Recommendation 6.2A: As part of Phase II of Plan Ithaca, complete, adopt, and implement a City Transportation Plan that addresses, at a minimum, the following points: i. Establishment of a street typology based on land use, transportation needs, and impacts to neighborhoods. ii. Identification of appropriate treatments (per complete streets standards) for each type of street to accommodate multiple modes, ensure long-term mobility, and protect the vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. iii. Recommendations for low-volume streets that could be narrowed and transformed into living streets. 3. Flood Management Plan a. Recommendation 8.2C: As part of Phase II of Plan Ithaca, develop a City floodplain management program that addresses, at a minimum, the following points: i. A method for determining whether flood-prone areas should be rebuilt or repurposed after a major flood; ii. Harmonization with flood-related portions of the Tompkins County Multi- Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan; and iii. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Neighborhood Plans 1. Southside 2. Waterfront&Inlet Island 3. West Hill 1 TOP 20 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLAN ITHACA The Comprehensive Plan Committee has identified the twenty recommendations from Plan Ithaca that it believes are the most important for the City to pursue. These twenty priority recommendations include a range of ongoing, short-, medium-, and long-term strategies. This list should not be interpreted as a summary of the plan's recommendations, and all of the recommendations included in the document are important to the implementation of the plan. Note: The ordering of the recommendations does not imply any ranking. The top twenty recommendations are listed in the order in which they appear in Plan Ithaca. 1. Work with the public to identify the most effective ways of involving and communicating with the community and dedicate resources to these methods. (Public Participation & Communication M) 2. Explore flexible zoning options to achieve the identified land use goals and implement the Future Land Use Map. (Land Use B) 3. Implement design standards and policies that require sustainable building practices and technologies. (Land Use F) 4. Work with neighboring municipalities to explore mechanisms to preserve green space surrounding the city and prevent sprawl, such as a transfer of development rights program. Land Use G) 5. Encourage the return of tax-exempt properties to the tax roll. (Fiscal Health H) 6. Identify opportunities to share services and equipment with surrounding municipalities and through public-private partnerships. (Fiscal Health K) 7. Encourage infill and redevelopment that includes a range of housing types and employment opportunities, in coordination with the goals of the Land Use chapter. (Economic Development D,M) 8. Work with schools, community organizations, and existing programs to expand job training and placement, apprenticeship, and supported work opportunities. (Workforce Development A) 9. Fund municipal services in a way that fairly distributes the burden of their cost across all property owners, including tax-exempt properties, as a means of increasing affordability. (Housing J) 10. Allocate additional staff resources to historic preservation. (Historic Preservation A) 11. Reassess the current use and condition of City infrastructure and facilities to determine if some structures can be abandoned, deconstructed, demolished, sold, or consolidated. (Physical Infrastructure Q) 12. Investigate extended hours and programming at City facilities to provide additional recreational opportunities for youth. (Health,Wellness, & Support F) 13. Adopt complete streets principles as official City policy to ensure that Ithaca's streets are well-designed, interconnected, and provide safe and convenient accommodations for all modes of transportation. (Increasing Transportation Choice A) 14. Work with the Town of Ithaca and Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) to (1) provide seamless bicycle and pedestrian linkages, such as continuous sidewalks between destinations in the two municipalities, and (2) secure transportation connections along the west City line, so that traffic heading to and from new development in the town has alternatives to Route 79. (Increasing Transportation Choice B) 2 15. Promote participation in public and private transportation demand management (TDM) programs. The City should work in partnership with the private sector to find mutually beneficial solutions to accommodate employee commuting and other transportation needs, including bicycles. (Increasing Transportation Choice J) 16. Work with NYSDOT, the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), and other interested agencies to transform the Route 13 corridor — from the north end of its Fulton / Meadow split to its Fall Creek bridge — into a complete street / urban boulevard (with sidewalks, street trees, bike lanes and safe pedestrian crossings) for the purpose of reconnecting areas of the city (e.g., the lakefront) that have been separated by this functionally limited-access stretch of highway; conduct a feasibility analysis for this transformation within five years. Consider the merits of adding a new intersection in the vicinity of Carpenter Business Park. (Connecting Land Use&Transportation C) 17. Create and adopt an official City map (with input from both engineering and planning standpoints) showing all planned future multi-modal transportation corridors and future street connections. (Connecting Land Use &Transportation E) 18. Continue to work with property owners on a permanent easement for a trail connection through the properties to connect the South Hill Recreation Way and the Gateway Trail. (Natural Resources J) 19. Establish a permanent City Sustainability staff position(s) to coordinate the City's sustainability-related initiatives. (Energy A) 20. Investigate ways to diversify and strengthen our local power grid through City-owned renewable energy systems including wind and hydropower, local energy production, and district energy systems. (Energy 1) 3 From: Eric Hathaway Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:57 AM To: Lisa Nicholas Subject: Comments for 222 S Cayuga and 416 E State Hello Lisa, Below are my comments for 222 S Cayuga and 416 E State site plan reviews. Thanks. 222 S Cayuga: A continuous sidewalk must be provided along the property frontage in the public right- of-way that meets the US Access Board's PROWAG (http://www.access- board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed- rights-of-way-guidelines) standards, including: No vertical discontinuities greater that 1/4" No sidewalk widths under 5 feet Sidewalks and curb ramps surfaces must be firm, stable, and slip resistant No cross slopes in excess of 2 percent Any curb ramps along the site frontage must be in accordance with NYSDOT standard details (https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/business-center/engineering/cadd- info/drawings/standard-sheets-us-repository/608-01.pdf) 416 E State Street: A continuous sidewalk must be provided along the property frontage in the public right- of-way that meets the US Access Board's PROWAG (http://www.access- board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed- rights-of-way-guidelines) standards, including: No vertical discontinuities greater that 1/4" No sidewalk widths under 5 feet Sidewalks and curb ramps surfaces must be firm, stable, and slip resistant No cross slopes in excess of 2 percent Eric Hathaway Sidewalk Program Manager City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Recommendation of Priorities for Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council DRAFT RESOLUTION September 22, 2015 WHEREAS, the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan, where Phase I entailed the preparation of an "umbrella" plan that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans,and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and recommending a new Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council for adoption,and WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca was adopted as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan by the Common Council on September 2, 2015,and WHEREAS, work on Phase II will begin in early 2016, and Planning staff will focus on the preparation of two neighborhood and/or thematic plans to begin this second phase,and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended three thematic plans (a housing strategy; a city-wide transportation plan; and a floodplain management plan) and three neighborhood plans (Southside; the Waterfront and Inlet Island; and West Hill) to be top priorities for completion in Phase II,and WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Committee's recommendation, the list of needed thematic plans identified by Plan Ithaca. and the list of the City's existing plans; now,therefore,be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board recommends that the Common Council select and to be the first two plans completed as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: 9-8-15 State Street Triangle - 301 E. State Street/MLK Blvd. PB Subcommittee Meeting In attendance: Planning Board Members: Schroeder, Elliot, and Blalock, Planning Staff. Cornish and Nicholas, Project Team Members: Demarest, Whitham, Duckett, Macejewski Three members of the Planning Board and staff met with the applicants to provide feedback on revised building massing concepts as illustrated in drawings titled "Option 2" and submitted on 9-3-15 (no date on drawings). The following issues were discussed: • Concerns about solar access. NYC laws require that all buildings are designed to allow for direct sunlight during some portion of the day. It was requested that the shadow study be verified because it did not appear to accurately depict the sun/shade angle. • It was requested that the applicant demonstrate the evolution of the design process and how the proposed floor plate was arrived at and show what other building configurations were considered. • Members generally supported the work done so far to break down the building mass—and requested that the applicant continue to explore the following: o The curved fagade at the corner of State Street/MLK Blvd. and Aurora needs more development as it will be the most visible and prominent fagade. It currently appears 2 dimensional and flat with no visible relief. Several ideas were discussed including, recessing the top floor, recessing and/or projecting the windows or columns- particularly on the largest column of windows on the corner, etc. etc o Continue to develop the east fagade—which will be highly visible on the descent of State Street/MLK Blvd. from East Hill. o Add windows at corners adjacent to recessed portions of building. o Use high quality building materials on the entire building with the portion of the building on the corner being mostly brick. No dri-vit should be used. • Delivery entrance on Aurora should be located so that it is not directly across from the entrance to the Marriott or designed to be compatible with the vibrant commercial streetscape • Applicant needs to provide section from Carey Building through Green Street Applicant needs to provide information regarding management of proposed rooftop terrace. WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC September 17, 2015 Lisa Nicholas Senior Planner Department of Planning and Economic Development City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca,N.Y. 14850 Re: State Street Triangle—Site Plan Application: Resubmittal of Revised Proposal Dear Lisa: On behalf of the Applicant, Campus Advantage, attached please find the following revised documents as part of the Site Plan Application Package for the proposed State Street Triangle Project located at 301 E.MLK/E. State Street: 1. Updated Project Drawings: a. Proposed Project Site Plan/Landscape Plan (Revised) including dimensions,with and without Improvements b. Proposed Project Elevations and Perspectives; and Precedents (Revised) c. Proposed Project Section with Solar Diagram 2. Memo from T.G.Miller Engineers and Surveyors,dated 9/16/15 3. Memo from LeChase Construction,dated 9/16/15 4. Memo from Leap!Structures Engineers, dated 9/16/15 5. Memo from Alliance Engineers,dated 9/16/15 6. Memo from Campus Advantage, dated 9/16/15 7. Executive Summary of Market Study from Campus Advantage 8. New York Times Article titled"The Millennial Commune" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/realestate/the-millennial-commune.html?_r=l, dated 7/31/15 9. Forbes Article titled"Why Millennials Love Renting" http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2014/10/07/why-millennials-love-renting/, dated 10/7/14 10. Memo and Transportation Demand Management Plan from SRF Associates, dated 9/16/15 11. Memo from TCAT, dated 9/16/15 The proposal is 116' tall, 11-story mixed-use building on a 0.759-acre site within the City of Ithaca's Density District and the CBD-120 Central Business Zoning District.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, creating a commercial base of 5 new retail/restaurant spaces. Loading and delivery areas,which serve the building, are provided off-street and internally underneath the courtyard,with vehicular access from South Aurora Street.An off-street trash area is also provided internally,with truck access from East Green Street. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 I WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC The building's tabulations have changed as a result of breaking up the mass of the previously proposed building into smaller buildings,which have been designed to emulate the surrounding historical district. The corner section of the building facing The Commons has been reduced in height, from 11 stories to 10 stories, resulting in a terrace with expansive views of the City, surrounding hills, and Cayuga Lake. The East State Street/MLK Jr. Street fagade has also been broken up into different sections, which have been designed to relate to the neighboring historical district in terms of scale, materials, and styles. More specificity of these changes and relationships is provided in the drawing packet, pages 9-14.Along the East State Street/ MLK Jr. Street fagade, the center section of the building's mass has been reduced,with shorter sections of the building which also set back. In this new scheme, "Building 3" changed from 11 stories to 8 stories, and "Building 2" from 11 stories to 9 stories. These changes have resulted in the following changes to square footage, and unit and bedroom counts: - The overall square footage of the building changed from 288,845 GSF to +/- 216,434 GSF. - The unit-count of the building changed from 240 units to 232 units. - The bedroom count of the building changed from 620 to 582 bedrooms. The proposal will help meet the goals of the draft Comprehensive Plan of the City by redeveloping a site where existing infrastructure already exists, creating greater tax revenue, and enriching the pedestrian and vehicular experience,particularly as visitors enter Ithaca. The project will have on-site amenities including ground floor retail and a fitness center,quiet rooms, and a 2nd floor courtyard for residents. There will be 24/7 on-site management with a fully staffed building, and programming provided for residents. The management team consists of a General Manager,Assistant General Manager,Leasing Manager, Resident Director (a live-in position), 7 Community Assistants,Maintenance Supervisor,Maintenance Technician, Porter, and Corporate Support including an assigned Regional Manager and Vice President of Operations. The proposed materials and mechanicals used in the building will meet or exceed the LEED standards, and the team is currently exploring the possibility of having the project be LEED certified. The following is a response from the Project Team to address concerns raised in the Part 3 Full Environmental Assessment Form: Impact on Land Information requested: - Confirmation that drilled piles (as opposed to driven piles)will be used - Details about temporary bracing Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 2 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC In a 9/16/15 memo from the Structural Engineers, Leap!Structures Engineers,they describe the following in regards to drilled piles being used, as opposed to driven piles, referencing the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated June 2015 and prepared by Empire Geo Services, Inc.: The building will be supported by a deep foundation system. The piers are anticipated to be drilled caissons to the bearing substrata, supporting concrete column point loads. The caissons will need to be executed to the rock bearing stratum located approximately 50' to 70' from existing grade. The shallow foundation will be slab on grade with deepened exterior footings for frost protection. In a 9/16/15 memo from LeChase Construction, they describe the following details about temporary bracing: In order to protect the existing adjacent resources,both infrastructure and utilities, temporary excavation bracing may need to be employed. LeChase will provide temporary shoring along the exiting roadways, if required, so that none of the existing subbase or utilities are compromised. Along the East Green Street side of the building we plan to utilize sheet piling if necessary to help stabilize the cut in the existing bank and preserve the existing pedestrian stairway. LeChase will also employ sheet piling along the foundation wall while construction occurs until such a time that the permanent retaining wall can be established if required. Impact on Drainage Information requested: - More information is needed to understand stormwater management to ensure it does not affect Six Mile Creek. In a 9/16/15 memo from T.G. Miller Engineers and Surveyors, they provide the following details about stormwater management on Site: The total site disturbance will be approximately 1.2 acres, which will require the preparation of a Full Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This SWPPP will include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and will be developed in accordance with the current NYSDEC (GP-0-15-002) and City of Ithaca stormwater regulations prior to any earth disturbing construction activities. The SWPPP will outline procedures for temporary erosion controls during construction, including measures such as silt fence, inlet protection and construction entrances. Construction, operation and maintenance of permanent controls that will remain after construction is complete will also be detailed. A Notice-of- Intent and MS4 SWPPP acceptance form will be prepared as part of the SWPPP and filed with NYSDEC prior to commencing construction. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 3 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC There are no existing permanent stormwater controls on the project site. Stormwater runoff from approximately half of the project site generally runs in a northerly direction to the City storm sewer on East State Street. Runoff from the remainder of the site drains in a southerly direction to the City storm sewer on East Green Street. Both of the City storm sewers discharge into Six Mile Creek. Under current NYSDEC stormwater regulations large portions of the project will be considered "redevelopment." The redevelopment regulations allow for exemptions from Stormwater Quantity controls provided that development activities result in no change to hydrology that increase the discharge rate from the project site. Impervious cover will not increase as a result of the project due to the construction of planting beds and lawn panels that will match existing pervious cover. New storm sewers will be installed on the site and the building plumbing will be designed to allow for roof runoff to be captured in a way that mimics the existing hydrology. Since the project will not increase impervious area and will maintain existing hydrologic patterns, the site will be exempt from installing Stormwater Quantity controls. However, a 25% reduction of impervious cover is required in order to qualify for an exemption from installing Stormwater Quality controls. Achieving a 25% reduction for this project is not realistic so stormwater planters, porous pavements and other measures will be utilized to meet the Stormwater Quality requirements. Standard storm sewer improvements will consist of catch basins located throughout the site as needed to support the site grading. Deep sumps and hoods will be part of the catch basin design to further improve water quality. HDPE pipe will connect the new catch basins to the existing City storm sewers. Impact on Air Information requested: - Information on dust-control measures/construction activity - Information on air-handling equipment and systems to address concerns of potential impacts such as noise, smell, and air flow As explained in the Site Logistics description and Diagrammatic Map provided by LeChase Construction on 8/17/15, the following dust-control measures will be employed: misting or fog spraying to minimize dust; maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site and reseeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils;keeping roads clear of dust and debris, requiring trucks to be covered; and prohibiting the burning of debris. In a 9/16/15 memo from the MEP Engineers,Alliance Engineers, they provide documents detailing the air- equipment proposed to be used in the project,and describe the following in regards to air-handling equipment: Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 4 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC In order to prevent impacts, especially to pedestrians from smell and air flow from mechanical vents the following actions will be taken.The building dwelling units will be conditioned by water source heat pump (WSHP) units,with central boilers and roof mounted cooling towers. Common areas and corridors will be conditioned via roof mounted air handling units. All exhausts for the common areas will be taken to the roof, either to exhaust fans or energy recovery ventilators (ERVs). Restaurant exhaust will be taken to the roof through HVAC shafts. All dwelling unit exhaust will be taken to roof mounted energy recovery ventilators resulting in reduced energy usage.This method eliminates the majority of the brick vents required dwelling unit exhaust. Impact on Aesthetic Resources Information requested: - Need more information on the potential visibility of mechanical systems and vents - The Lead Agency has expressed concerns about the size,height, and massing of the building In a 9/16/15 memo from the MEP Engineers,Alliance Engineers,they provide documents detailing the mechanical systems and vents proposed to be used in the project, and describe the following in regards to the visibility of mechanical systems and vents: The use of roof-mounted exhaust/ERVs will eliminate brick vents, resulting in reduced energy usage. Limited mechanicals will be visible from users, pedestrians,or vehicles driving on E. State Street or S. Aurora Street. The following is a description of the current proposal for sidewalk and intersection changes, including details about sidewalk widths with and without changes. More detailed information addressing the size, height, and massing of the building can be found in the next section, under"Impact on Historic Resources". The proposal,as it now stands,makes no change to the existing curb lines,with the exception of closing two existing curb cuts along E. State Street/MLK Jr. Street. However,we have presented an alternate proposal to both the Planning Board and the Board of Public Works,which is currently under review. This alternate scheme proposes the reconfiguration of the Aurora/State intersection and removal of the existing slip lane offers an opportunity for an expanded public amenity at the most prominent corner and most heavily used pedestrian area of the property.The proposed widened sidewalks, if realized,will create an entirely new pedestrian zone related to the new first floor commercial businesses.The space as shown in the Site Plan on pages 3 and 4 could be utilized for a significant amount of outdoor dining space with movable furniture,extending the function and character of the Commons across Aurora Street. This Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 5 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC change to the street intersection requires further coordination with the City Engineers and SRF Consulting Engineers to develop a final plan for the proposed work outside of the property boundaries and within the City ROW. Furthermore,with an interest in improving the pedestrian experience, the project team is in conversations with DOT to enhance the landscape along the Green Street slope by bringing in characteristics of the gorge across the street into the site. The current Site Plan, as it now stands, is to leave the slip lane in its current configuration,which will retain a sidewalk width ranging from 10+/-feet to 19 +/-feet.The alternate Proposal will increase the E. State/MLK Jr. Street sidewalk by 8.5 feet,providing a total sidewalk width of 22+/-feet. This is about 2 feet larger than the widest sidewalks along the"Restaurant Row" of Aurora Street. The additional width along E. State/MLK Jr. Street will provide for continuous outdoor dining and shopping along the entire North side of the building. Impact on Historic Resources Concerns Raised/Information Requested: - Project must demonstrate how it responds sympathetically to the historic district - Potential Mitigation: Step building down and vary massing to be more compatible to the height and rhythm of the historic district across East State Street. The attached revised drawing packet provides updated drawings and views of the current proposed building. In this drawing packet, pages 9-14 detail the ways in which the mass of the previous iteration of the building has been broken up into various different buildings.These pages also describe how architectural details from the surrounding historic district and neighborhood are being used as inspiration for the architecture of the proposed Project.The following is a description of the current proposal, and how the revisions to the project have been made to address the concerns raised about the size, height, and massing of the building. The concerns from City Historic Preservation Planner in terms of massing,size,scale, and proportions within close proximity to the Ithaca Downtown Historic District are being addressed in the following ways. The proposed building is a double loaded corridor apartment building with a limited range of cost effective configurations to provide each unit with natural daylight and access to egress stairs and elevators. The development team has looked at ways in which the overall massing could be broken up into separate individual buildings,which would require completely separate egress components and a significant increase in the exterior thermal envelop of the building. Completely separate buildings would reduce the number of apartment units, significantly increase the costs of construction, and make the project not financially feasible. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 6 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC However,there has been an effort made to reduce the apparent massing by breaking the block into six distinct buildings, all about 3-5 structural bays wide with a variety of materials and colors. Furthermore, the number of units along the E. State/MLK Street elevation has been reduced to further differentiate the individual buildings and also allow more direct and reflected daylight to penetrate onto the street. The current proposal breaks the previously submitted center facade section on the E. State/MLK Street into two distinct building masses separately articulated, to create the effect of four distinct buildings along the 300 block of E. State/MLK.These masses are more in keeping with the widths of individual buildings across the street and throughout downtown.The heights of these middle buildings are 85 ft and 95ft to be more sympathetic to the 83ft tall Carey Building. There is a loss of 38 bedrooms in this configuration. Changes to the block to establish the 6 building facades are summarized below: • Building 1 o Retains the 11-story height at the westernmost corner,where the building will be viewed from uphill, and where an iconic tower piece feels most appropriate and least impactful on the historic district. • Building 2 o Drops the easternmost, center building mass 2 stories, to 9 stories, in response to the desire for more light access to the street, and to distinguish it as a separate building from the westernmost center building mass. o Pushes the fourth through ninth floors about 8 feet away from the street to increase light access and further distinguish it as a separate building. o Creates a different third floor cornice expression to create a"base plinth" type building mass reminiscent of the Carey Building across the street,and to break up the continuous sheer wall above the third story. • Building 3 o Drops the westernmost, center building mass 3 stories, to 8 stories, more in keeping with the Carey building across the street, in response to the desire for more light access at the street level, and a greater variety in the massing. o Eliminates the cornice at the 3rd story of the westernmost center building mass and changes facade color, to emphasize the separate building. It retains the strong first story retail facade and sign band. • Building 4 o Drops the street facing half of the westernmost end of the building mass (curve on Aurora) one story, to 10 stories total, to lessen the height impact on the eastern end of the Commons. The roof area would become a controlled-access outdoor space for special events,with Cayuga Lake and Downtown views. • Building 5 and 6 o The massing of these two buildings along E. Green Street remain unchanged but details have been refined to include more recessed windows and greater shadow lines. • All new roof terraces may become usable outdoor spaces for tenants pending further consideration pertaining to liability and desirability on the part of the city. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 7 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC Impact on Transportation Concerns Raised/Information Requested: - A Transportation Demand Management Plan has been requested by the Lead Agency to address the concerns raised and potential impacts to transportation through various forms of mitigation - Construction impacts on transportation In a 9/16/15 memo from the Traffic Engineers, SRF Associates, they provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan,and describe the following in regards to transportation: Revised trip generation estimates were used for the Traffic Impact Study submitted in August 2015.The revised estimates refer to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data for the residential and commercial land uses.These estimates also take into account the revised trip generation reduction credits (e.g., transit,pedestrian, bicycle) used for the initial Traffic Assessment submitted in June 2015. Based on the Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Project, the existing transportation system can accommodate the added vehicle trips without significant adverse impacts to the study area intersections. As well, measurements of the existing sidewalk widths in areas with more than likely moderate to high levels of pedestrian activity throughout the Ithaca CBD reveal that five feet is standard,with minimum widths of six feet along Green Street nearby City Hall and along Seneca Street.The Commons has clear pedestrian zone widths of ten to twelve feet. Existing data and analysis should be presented from the concerned parties that allege the existing transportation facilities, including the pedestrian and bicycle facilities,are operating at capacity and will therefore be adversely impacted as a result of the Proposed Project. The existing 3 City owned and operated parking garages are each no greater than 0.25 mile, which on average takes 6 minutes to walk, are currently not operating at capacity. The expected increase in residents in the Project with vehicles would be able to be accommodated in these garages. Frank Nagy has verbally conformed this as of September 8,2015. The Proposed Project is providing 27 bicycle parking spaces. The elevators will be large enough to fit a standard sized bicycle and accompanying person. In a 9/16/15 memo from the Developers, Campus Advantage,they describe the following in regards to transportation mitigation: An important component to traffic management is relying on the in-place transportation infrastructure and discouraging auto ownership by not providing on-site parking.As stated by TCAT (see attached letter from Doug Swarts, dated 9/16/15), this site is the best-located site in Ithaca in relation to public Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 8 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC transportation, especially to Cornell and Ithaca College,whose routes have ample capacity to serve to project. As explained in the Site Logistics description and Diagrammatic Map provided by LeChase Construction on 8/17/15, the following summarizes the description of construction routing and parking, and potential road and sidewalk closures: •Construction staging and deliveries— • The intent of the logistics plan is to utilize the proposed grade changes in order to create a staging and drop-off area along the East Green street side of the building. With aid of traffic flagmen, this will allow us to get construction deliveries out of the roadway along East Green Street and safely load and unload without excessively impacting the traffic. • This staging area will serve as our primary point of receiving material deliveries so that they can be distributed throughout the building as well as our dumpster locations. We will also need to have access along the State street side of the building so that we can stage and erect the exterior envelope of the building. • Material will be staged at an offsite location and brought in on an as needed basis. •Potential Road and sidewalk closures • In regards to sidewalk closures,we will need to close the sidewalks along all three sides of the site and re-route pedestrian traffic across the roadway,we intend on providing new crosswalk locations and associated sidewalks at these locations •Construction routing • We will encourage the subcontractors to access the construction site primarily along Rt. 79 reducing the traffic flow in and around the Commons. •Contractor parking • Parking will be offsite and workers will need to either be bused in with select parking onsite for transportation vehicles or we will work to negotiate a local parking lot where we can secure so many paid spots for workers to utilize Impact on Noise Information Requested: - Construction impacts on noise—foundation construction and construction periods - More information is needed about air-handling equipment and systems In a 9/16/15 memo from the Structural Engineers, Leap!Structures Engineers, they describe the following in regards to drilled piles being used and the construction period for this activity: Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 9 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC The foundation construction will most likely entail drilled caissons.The caissons will be drilled to a depth of approximately 75 feet. The anticipated pile drilling will be limited to 7:00 am to 4:00 pm weekdays. The drilling schedule will be coordinated by the contractor and their sub-contractors. In a 9/16/15 memo from LeChase Construction, they describe the following details about noise mitigation during construction: In order to prevent impacts from construction to pedestrians and surrounding users from noise from construction activities the following actions will be taken. Construction activities resulting in noises at and/or above (85 dB) decibels will be limited to 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM, Monday—Friday/Saturday. While there will be activities that result in noise above this 85dB threshold the intent is to begin this work after 8:00 am and conclude ahead of 6:00 in the evening so that the impact on the surrounding community is minimized. Additionally, in order to reduce the impact of noise on pedestrians and neighbors, the project will work to coordinate construction activities that produce excessive noise so that we can work to limit the amount of concurrent work with the adjacent downtown construction projects. Impact on Public Health Information Requested: - Applicant is required to work with NYSDEC and possible NYS Department of Health to address any issues In a 9/16/15 memo from the Structural Engineers, Leap!Structures Engineers,they describe the following in regards to working with other agencies to address public health concerns: As has been stated by the City, the project team will work with NYSDEC and when appropriate,NYS Department of Health, to ensure that all soils that are excavated and tested appropriately and disposed of as per the guidance and direction of the above-stated state agencies. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 10 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC Impact on Growth & Character of Community or Neighborhood Information Requested: - Pedestrian Circulation Diagram - Expected resident breakdown and description of how the building will be leased - Market analysis performed for project - TCAT service and capacity at downtown bus stops - Inventory of proximate services for residents - Additional emergency response services needed - Information on location and size of existing and required utilities and plans for extension or upgrades if needed - Clarification regarding cost burden of proposed street improvements - Transportation Demand Management Plan o Projected parking demand (documented with evidence) for residents and retail o Types of parking needed(storage, long-term,short-term, etc.) o Parking supply ■ Downtown Garages ■ Other types of parking that will be provided Whitham Planning&Design,LLC submitted a Proposed Circulation and Access Plan on 8/19/15,which identifies the Green Street Transit stop, Seneca Street transit stop, and the Aurora Street transit stop. The TCAT website only identifies an East State Street at Stewart Avenue transit stop. The project team will explore the suggested potential mitigations to the Green Street public sidewalk. As the vegetated slope to the north of Green Street is owned by the NYS DOT the team will meet with representatives to discuss relocating the sidewalk to allow for a treelawn and street trees. The project strives to be an extension of The Commons the design of the intersection at Aurora and E. State Street will improve the pedestrian and vehicular safety and experience. The team has been in conversation with the City of Ithaca Traffic Engineer about this intersection. This communication and collaboration will continue as the project design progresses. In a 9/16/15 memo from the Developer, Campus Advantage, they provide an attachment of charts,which detail the expected resident breakdown.The memo describes the following in regards to the expected resident breakdown of the project: 77.8%student,22.2% non-student. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 11 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC 78.4%of the students undergrad,21.6%estimated to be graduate 64%from Cornell, 32% from IC,4% from TC3 Parking demand is estimated to be 191 cars. All units will be rented"by the bedroom". Given Efficiencies and one-bedroom units only have one bedroom, only one lease will need to be executed. On all other unit types,a potential resident will be able to execute multiple leases for multiple bedrooms. Unfortunately, Property Management software does not allow a mix of leasing types. Therefore,if a conventional renter would like to rent a two bedroom unit, then that individuals will be able to do so by signing a lease for each bedroom.This does occur with some regularity across our 40+property portfolio. In the two articles provided as an attachment(New York Times article, "The Millennial Commune" and Forbed article, "Why Millennials Love Renting") they describe how Millennials (defined as a person reaching young adulthood around the year 2000) are more and more looking for rentals that include amenities and utilities, and how renting by the bedroom to live in a shared space with others is becoming increasingly desirable.The demand in this market is expected to continue growing. In a 9/16/15 memo from the Developer, Campus Advantage, they provide an attachment of an Executive Summary of their Market Analysis. The following is a summary of the Market Analysis: "The Subject Development is located at 301 East State Street in Ithaca,NY,approximately 0.6 miles to Cornell University and 0.9 miles to Ithaca College. It sits at the gateway of the new downtown pedestrian corridor,known as Ithaca Commons.This area is a four-block pedestrian area populated with retail, restaurants, and nightlife that is frequented by Ithaca residents,as well as Cornell and IC students.The 0.76-acre site is proposed to be an 11-story building with the first floor containing retail,as well as the leasing office and common area amenities. Possible amenities include a 24-hour fitness center,a flex fitness space,media/game lounge,study rooms and an internet cafe. The city of Ithaca is in central New York and is the county seat of Tompkins County, as well as the largest community in the Ithaca-Tompkins County metropolitan area. This contains the municipalities of the Town of Ithaca, the village of Cayuga Heights, and other towns and villages in Tompkins County). The city of Ithaca is located on the southern shore of Cayuga Lake,in Central New York. Ithaca is home to three institutions of higher learning- Cornell University,Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3). In 2013, the city's estimated population was 30,515, and the metropolitan area had a population of 103,617. Of the three institutions of higher learning, two are Tier 1 investable markets and given their proximity to the Subject Site,it can be assumed that this development will target students from both.The site is within Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 12 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC one mile of both campuses and can be accessed via TCAT shuttle routes. Routes 10 & 11 provide express access to both Cornell and Ithaca College, respectively,every 10 minutes from lam to 7pm,seven days a week. Additionally,late night routes also provide coverage from 8:00 to 2:30 am from downtown Ithaca to Cornell Monday through Saturday. Additionally, the site's adjacency to downtown Ithaca provides residents with superb access to the entirety of Ithaca and Tompkins county given downtown Ithaca is the hub in the TCAT's Hub and Spoke accessibility model. Cornell students are able to accesses TCAT via purchasing an OmniRide pass for$200 per year. Ithaca College students are also offered discounted passes for$265 for the year. In fall 2014, Cornell saw its highest enrollment yet,reaching 21,850,which is a 4.4% growth over the past five years, an increase of 911 students. Undergraduates at Cornell account for 66% of the total population,approximately 14,453 students, and graduates number 7,397.All students are attending this institution on a full-time basis. Out-of-state students make up 73% of the total population. Cornell currently houses approximately 7,463 students,which accounts for approximately 51.6%of the undergraduate students and 34.2% of the total population. There is no on-campus housing requirement. Ithaca College enrolls 6,587 students, of which 6,124 are undergraduates. 97%of students are attending IC full-time and 56% come from out of state. IC requires housing through junior year and houses approximately 4,395 students in 27 traditional residence halls and two apartment complexes.This accounts for 71.8% of the undergraduate population and 66.7% of the total enrollment.. The Mayor of Ithaca, Svante Myrick, and Tompkins Legislator, Martha Robertson, recently submitted an article to The Ithaca Voice stating Ithaca's housing crisis 1. They state the shortage of rental and for-sale housing is getting worse every year.The lack of housing causes people to live further out in the suburbs, causing traffic congestion,damage to the infrastructure, environmental issues, as well as putting a strain on public transit.The county's 2006 assessment reported that Ithaca would need at least 2,127 new rental units by 2014 to meet the demand. During the 2006-2014 timeframe,only 657 new units have been completed in the city of Ithaca. During that time, Cornell added 2,400 new undergraduate and graduate students.What's even more threatening to the housing crisis is Cornell's plans to grow even more in the next fast year, predicting that they will add 1,300 undergraduate and graduate students. According to Nels Bohn, of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Ithaca's vacancy rate in 2014 was 1%with rental rates increase of 13%from 2013 to 2014. Per a April 2014 New York Times Article,Ithaca is America's 11`h least affordable housing market with residents spending on average 38.6% of their income on housing. This means Ithaca is more expensive than Napa, CA, Honolulu, Hi and Boulder,CO. General macroeconomics theory will illustrate that a market who's supply and demand is so stretched, that new supply is needed in order to provide slack in the economy. The off-campus market can be mostly characterized by a collection of smaller apartment communities that offer very few amenities, are not professionally managed and do not resemble traditional purpose-built student product.The overall occupancy for the Ithaca market is strong at 99%,with many of the properties beginning lease up for the following year in early fall due to strong housing demand. The Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 13 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC Subject Development will bring a professional management team and residence life program unlike what is currently present in Ithaca.Additionally,it will offer residents a variety of amenities and apartment finishes that will be superior to the rest of the market." In a 9/16/15 memo from Doug Swarts, Service Development Manager for TCAT, a description of TCAT's service and capacity at downtown bus stops to serve the project is provided. The following is an inventory of proximate services for residents: Residents of the Project will be located in the downtown core, in one of the densest areas in the City. The following services are in close proximity. Emergency Services City of Ithaca Police Department City of Ithaca Fire Department Bangs Ambulance Cayuga Medical Center Municipal Services U.S. Post Office City of Ithaca City Hall Tompkins County Public Library Transportation Services East Seneca Street TCAT stop Green Street TCAT stop Aurora Street TCAT stop Big Red Bullet(proposed new bus to NYC to launch late September 2015, departing from Green Street TCAT stop) Food Services Greenstar DeWitt Cooperative Market Press Bay Alley Farmers Market DeWitt Park Farmers Market Restaurant Row The Commons Gateway Center Entertainment Services CSMA Cinamopolis State Theatre Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 14 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC The History Center Retail Services The Commons Gateway Center Aurora Street shops The following is a description of additional emergency response services,which is not anticipated to require any further additions to support the Project: The additional residents and businesses from this project would require no further additions to the City and County existing emergency response services as the tenants of the building are expected to be current residents already residing within Ithaca.We expect a vast majority of these tenants to be relocating to this building, rather than new residents from locations beyond the immediate region. In a 9/16/15 memo from T.G. Miller Engineers and Surveyors, they provide attachments of correspondence with various utility providers, and provide the following details about the location and size of existing and required utilities: General Capacity Statement Existing utilities that will need to be extended to the site, installed or modified as a result of the project include storm sewers, stormwater management systems, domestic and fire water, sanitary sewers, telecommunications and electric pathways and natural gas. The City confirmed in a letter to the Owner on April 30`h, 2015 that their water system and sanitary and storm sewers have adequate capacity for the project to make connections. NYSEG and Verizon have also confirmed that they have capacity to serve the project. Domestic and Fire Water Water service to the building is located north of the site off of East State Street. In this area, a 16" main exists. The static pressure at hydrant G-102, near the intersection of South Aurora Street and East State Street,is 78 psi at an elevation of approximately 419.00'. To confirm available fire flows results from a flow test performed by the City of Ithaca in 2015 were reviewed. Hydrant G-114 (located near the South Aurora Street bridge) was used as the gauge hydrant and Hydrant G-102 was used as the flow hydrant.The flow test resulted in static and residual pressures of 78 and 72 psi, respectively, at hydrant G-114 while hydrant G-102 was flowing at 1,325 GPM. An 8" existing unused water service enters the property off of the 16" main along East State Street. This service will be utilized to feed the new building. Accordingly, a new 8" combined service will be extended Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 15 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC along the face of the building to the mechanical room where the service will split into new domestic and fire services. Sanitary Services An existing 20" plastic sanitary sewer main is located west of the project along South Aurora Street.A new 8"lateral will be installed in the southwest corner of the building to connect to the City main. Telecommunications Pathways An existing telecommunications service along East Green Street will be impacted by the project. Proposed changes to site elevations along Green Street will require rerouting and lowering a portion of the existing duct bank. Electric Pathways There currently exists a NYSEG transformer and switch gear on the property located at the southwest corner of the project. Both of these will have to be relocated into the NYSDOT right of way as part of this project. The switch gear will be relocated along East Green Street,while the transformer will repositioned along South Aurora Street. New pathways will be run from the relocated transformer to provide new service to the building. Gas The nearest available medium pressure gas is located south of East Green Street.Accordingly,the main will be tapped and a new service to the building will be extended under East Green Street. In clarification regarding the cost burden of proposed street improvements, Campus Advantage has stated they are open to discussing cost sharing of the public street improvements with the City. In a 9/16/15 memo from the Traffic Engineers, SRF Associates, they provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan,and describe the following in regards to vehicular parking: The users of the building would have varying parking needs that range from short-term to long-term and storage. It is estimated approximately 20 percent of the proposed residential component will require long- term parking with the remaining designated for short-term parking and guests. It is anticipated that retail customers who arrive by personal vehicle will predominately require short-term parking(less than 2 hours),while retail employees and building staff who arrive by personal vehicle will require long-term parking. Residents who have a vehicle that they do not need to access regularly will have the option of parking in an off-site storage lot. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 16 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC SRF Associates completed a Traffic Impact Study on August 14,2015 for the State Street Triangle project. Using the Shared Parking Model, a total of 283 parking spaces are needed.A total of 57 parking spaces are required for customers, seven parking spaces for employees (commercial), and between 191 and 219 parking spaces are reserved for residents. The parking capacity for the proposed project will be provided primarily in the Cayuga Street Parking Garage via 250 reserved parking spaces. The 27 bicycle parking spaces provided on-site may reduce the need for vehicle parking spaces.Additionally, there were will be two to three carshare parking spaces which can equate to a reduction of approximately 15 personal automobiles per carshare vehicle. The deficit in parking spaces may need to be provided through the use of the City's other public parking garages (e.g.,Tioga Street and Green Street) or available onstreet parking. It should be noted that other parking adjustment factors may be considered to reduce the total demand for parking. Factors such as carsharing, demographics, nearby land use mix, employment density, transit accessibility,et al have the ability to affect parking demand and optimal parking supply. Truck deliveries are planned on-site during off-peak hours. A four-point parking program is being created for residents with private vehicles. The plan is being created in conjunction with the City of Ithaca's parking facilities and will utilize vacant parking spaces in existing City garages and surface lots. It is conservatively anticipated that up to 40% of the residents may have personal vehicles. • Cayuga Garage-Campus Advantage is in the process of seeking a parking agreement with the non- profit ownership entity for Cayuga Garage to utilize vacant spaces in the upper levels of the garage. There are over 300 vacant parking spaces in the garage and parking revenues from residents of the project will help reduce the$960,000 in annual public subsidies currently needed to fund the garage debt. • Seneca Garage—Approximately 100 vacant spaces have been identified by City parking officials that could be reserved by residents of the State Street Triangle Project. • Green Street Garage—There are approximately 75 underutilized spaces in the Green Street Garage which is within a 2-3 minute walk from the site. Satellite Lots—Surface parking lots near the Cornell campus and others that are in the planning stage elsewhere throughout the City will be available for those residents that primarily use their vehicles on weekends and holidays. The lots can be easily accessed via public transit. Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 17 WHITHAM PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC We look forward to continuing to work with you and presenting the proposed project at the upcoming Planning Board meeting. If you have any questions or require additional information,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Catherine De Almeida Phone: 607.379.9175 Email. whithamQawhithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite201 Ithaca, NY14850 18 T . G . MILLER , P . C . E N G I N E E R S A N D S U R V E Y O R S 203 N.Aurora Street I Ithaca, NY 14850 1 phone 607-272-6477 1 fax 607-273-6322 1 www.tgmillerpc.com September 16, 2015 Re: State Street Triangle Project FEAF Utility Memo Below are supporting narratives for the Impacts on Drainage and Utilities in support of the FEAF: Stormwater The total site disturbance will be approximately 1.2 acres which will require the preparation of a Full Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This SWPPP will include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and will be developed in accordance with the current NYSDEC (GP-0-15- 002) and City of Ithaca stormwater regulations prior to any earth disturbing construction activities. The SWPPP will outline procedures for temporary erosion controls during construction, including measures such as silt fence, inlet protection and construction entrances. Construction, operation and maintenance of permanent controls that will remain after construction is complete will also be detailed. A Notice-of-Intent and MS4 SWPPP acceptance form will be prepared as part of the SWPPP and filed with NYSDEC prior to commencing construction. There are no existing permanent stormwater controls on the project site. Stormwater runoff from approximately half of the project site generally runs in a northerly direction to the City storm sewer on East State Street. Runoff from the remainder of the site drains in a southerly direction to the City storm sewer on East Green Street. Both of the City storm sewers discharge into Six Mile Creek. Under current NYSDEC stormwater regulations large portions of the project will be considered "redevelopment." The redevelopment regulations allow for exemptions from Stormwater Quantity controls provided that development activities result in no change to hydrology that increase the discharge rate from the project site. Impervious cover will not increase as a result of the project due to the construction of planting beds and lawn panels that will match existing pervious cover. New storm sewers will be installed on the site and the building plumbing will be designed to allow for roof runoff to be captured in a way that mimics the existing hydrology. Since the project will not increase impervious area and will maintain existing hydrologic patterns, the site will be exempt from installing Stormwater Quantity controls. However, a 25% reduction of impervious cover is required in order to qualify for an exemption from installing Stormwater Quality controls. Achieving a 25% reduction for this project is not realistic so stormwater planters, porous pavements and other measures will be utilized to meet the Stormwater Quality requirements. Standard storm sewer improvements will consist of catch basins located throughout the site as needed to support the site grading. Deep sumps and hoods will be part of the catch basin design to further improve water quality. HDPE pipe will connect the new catch basins to the existing City storm sewers. General Capacity Statement: Existing utilities that will need to be extended to the site, installed or modified as a result of the project include storm sewers, stormwater management systems, domestic and fire water, sanitary sewers, telecommunications and electric pathways and natural gas. The City confirmed in a letter to the Owner on April 30th, 2015 that their water system and sanitary and storm sewers have adequate capacity for the project to make connections. NYSEG and Verizon have also confirmed that they have capacity to serve the project. See correspondence attached to this letter. David A. Herrick, P.E. Steven R. Rowe, P.E. Lee Dresser, L.S. Frank L. Santelli, P.E. Dondi M. Harner, P.E. Darrin A. Brock, L.S. Andrew J.Sciarabba, P.E. LEED A.P., C.P.E.S.C. Edward D. Ripic,Jr.,L.S. Domestic and Fire Water Water service to the building is located north of the site off of East State Street. In this area, a 16" main exists. The static pressure at hydrant G-102, near the intersection of South Aurora Street and East State Street, is 78 psi at an elevation of approximately 419.00'. To confirm available fire flows results from a flow test performed by the City of Ithaca in 2015 were reviewed. Hydrant G-114 (located near the South Aurora Street Bridge) was used as the gauge hydrant and Hydrant G-102 was used as the flow hydrant. The flow test resulted in static and residual pressures of 78 and 72 psi, respectively, at hydrant G-114 while hydrant G-102 was flowing at 1,325 GPM. See flow test diagram and email from City attached to this letter. An 8" existing unused water service enters the property off of the 16" main along East State Street. This service will be utilized to feed the new building. Accordingly, a new 8" combined service will be extended along the face of the building to the mechanical room where the service will split into new domestic and fire services. Sanitary Services An existing 20" plastic sanitary sewer main is located west of the project along South Aurora Street. A new 8" lateral will be installed in the southwest corner of the building to connect to the City main. Telecommunications Pathways An existing telecommunications service along East Green Street will be impacted by the project. Proposed changes to site elevations along Green Street will require rerouting and lowering a portion of the existing duct bank. Electric Pathways There currently exists a NYSEG transformer and switch gear on the property located at the southwest corner of the project. Both of these will have to be relocated into the NYSDOT right of way as part of this project. The switch gear will be relocated along East Green Street, while the transformer will repositioned along South Aurora Street. New pathways will be run from the relocated transformer to provide new service to the building. Gas The nearest available medium pressure gas is located south of East Green Street. Accordingly, the main will be tapped and a new service to the building will be extended under East Green Street. All proposed utilities are shown on the attached utility plan. Respectfully, Andrew J. Sci bba, P.E. Vice Preside T.G. Miller, P.C. CITY OF ITHACA o; 510 First Street, Ithaca,New York 14850 3506 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • WATER AND SEWER DIVISION Telephone:607/272-1717 Fax: 607/277-5028 April 30, 2015 Ronnie Macejewski Campus Advantage 110 Wild Basin Road, Suite 365 Austin, Texas 78746 Re: 301 East State Street, (Trebloc Site) Letter of Service Availability Water & Sewer Dear Mr. Macejewski, As requested, this letter is to express to you our intent to make available water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer services to the 301 East State Street property. Municipal water, sanitary, and storm mains are accessible to this property. The mains are of adequate capacity and condition to ensure the level of service provided is similar to that through out the downtown area. We will install service connections and pipes to the right-of-way line for this property, as we would for any other such properties in the City of Ithaca. The property owners must make application for these services, obtain permits, and pay for the services and their connection to the municipal mains. Please note the facilities on the property as well as the services and connections shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in compliance with the City of Ithaca and New York State Building Codes, Plumbing Codes, and Stormwater Regulations. Please call me at (607) 272-1717 if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely Erik Whitney, P.E. Assistant Superintendent of Public Works City of Ithaca DPW Water & Sewer Division XC: Michael Thorne, PE, Superintendent DPW Ray Benjamin, Assistant Superintendent DPW, S&F Division Scott Gibson, Environmental Engineer/Stormwater Mgt. Officer Marc Albanese, Chief Plumbing Inspector George Seeley, Water & Sewer Operations Supervisor Hydrant Flow Test Log Request/Project: 404 Seneca Way Project No.: Challenge Industries Location: hit of E. State Street and Aurora Street Conducted Bv: D. Corwin,M. Sledieski, S. Gibson Date: 1/4/12 Time: 13:50 Sketch: $" uctrle Iran ' - 126-34 ',--I 8-24 119-23 411 — 13 415 417 c �, �19', 4-23 116 324 12-14 115 142-56 310-12 108-1 0 ! ' LD 2 2 I -103 320-24 326-3 I 404-06 _1'�j _ +1 314-20 + 8.10 - G-105 0 j -102 Y9 3 s � � _ 76"'Castlrort Y r 220 c 301 25 Js" 215 -- -11 ----- ------ -- g( _2 -' 311 -' --- 4 Iti� ------------- Pressure Gauged Hydrant Calc's. & Comments: Number: G-102 0 5a 0.54 PS —PR 1 � PS-2o1 Location: Aurora and State Streets QR =QT I Q20 =QT Static, Ps: 77 psi Ps —PTR Ps—PTR Residual,PTR: 69 psi Flowed Hydrant QR—Flow at Test Residual Pressure TR-gpm Number: G-105 Q2o—Flow calculated @ 20-psi residual—gpm Location: E. State Street QT—Flow Test Result @ test residual—gpm Flow, QT: 1,067 gpm* PR(2o)—Calculated Residual Pressure R(20)-psi Calculated Flow @ 20psi, Q20: 3,081 gpm Due to excessive hydraulic field conditions, hydrant was opened approximately %2 way. From: Matthew Sledjeski [ma i Ito:MSledieski@cityofithaca.org] Sent: Wednesday,July 01, 2015 8:57 AM To:Andrew Sciarabba Subject: Hydrant Test-State &Aurora Andy, Here is the information you requested. Please let me know if you need anything else. Flowed: G102 (E State & Aurora) Date: 5/8/2015 Gauged: G114 (S Aurora near bridge) Static: 78 psi Residual: 72 psi Field Flow: 1325 gpm Calculated Flow @ 20psi 4510 gpm Regards, Matt Sledjeski Civil Engineer City of Ithaca Department of Public Works Water & Sewer Division 510 First Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph: 607-272-1717 Fx: 607-277-5028 Cell: 607-279-7745 To: Mr. Ronnie Macejewski NYSEG Sr. Vice President, Development Campus Advantage 110 Wild Basin Road, Suite 365 Austin, Texas 78746 From: Tad Palmer, NYSEG Key Account Management, 1387 Dryden Road, Ithaca, NY 14850. Re: Natural Gas Availability at 301 East State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. Natural Gas Service Notification: 10300114946. May 15, 2015 Dear Mr. Macejewski, NYSEG (the "Company") received a request for natural gas service at the location referenced above. Based upon an engineering analysis of the existing natural gas distribution system, the Company has capacity to serve the above address at this time subject to the following: •Total connected peak load information provided by the customer of 7,000,000 btu/hour. •The Company's ability to serve this load may be impacted by changes in your project's gas load and NYSEG's change in available system capacity between the date of this letter and the request for installation of your service. •Service pressure of six inches water column at the outlet of the gas meter. This letter is intended to address natural gas capacity capability only, and does not address costs you may be required to pay for natural gas service under the Company's tariff(s) and applicable laws and regulations. As your project progresses, the Company urges you to remain in contact with us regarding project schedule, our ability to serve, and any modifications to proposed load. In future correspondence, please include the Service Notification number noted above. NYSEG's tariff (NYS Public Service Commission 90) contains terms regarding extension and installation of natural gas facilities. Please contact me at 607.347.2707 or Jack Barker, Ithaca Natural Gas Field Planner, at 607.347.2262 with any questions. Sincerely, ,--—/-4 9" )ek - tive, Tad A. Palmer NYSEG Key Account Management 1387 Dtr den Road, Ithaca, NY 1 4850-88 1 0 IBERDROCA USA r;e-�u�f i�;p�rrcr^ai emPxcycr NYSEG May 8, 2015 Campus Advantage Development Associates 110 Wild Basin Rd,Suite 365 Austin,TX 78746 RE: Release of Easement 301 East State Street City of Ithaca;Tompkins County Tax Map#:69.-4-1 Dear Ronnie Macejewski: This letter will service as notice that once the following circumstances are met it is NYSEG's intention to release the electric easement(Liber 548 Page 712)located on the property located at 301 East State Street in the City of Ithaca. The existing NYSEG equipment must be removed from the property All construction costs and a$750.00 fee for the release of easement document must be paid Once this is done, NYSEG will provide you with the release of easement you can file with the Tompkins County Clerk. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 607-347-2108. S' erely, r J nnif . Ne us Analyst c y SA Networks- Right of Way Ithaca Division IBERDROLA USA From: Kuhn, Dennis [mailto:DKuhn@nyseg.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:23 AM To: Ronnie Macejewski; Andrew Sciarabba Cc: Barker, John; Negus, Jennifer; Scott Whitham; Catherine Dealmeida; Zdimal, John; Foster, Lisa; Nart Shafagoj Subject: RE: State Street Triangle Capacity Letter and Easement Release Ronnie, Thank you for the load sheets. I have forwarded them on to our corporate systems engineering group. Corporate engineering will determine the scope of any modifications that need to be made in order to serve your buildings load. I am currently trying to determine a expected timeline for this review to be complete. As soon as I know I will let you know. Currently we have a 3phase underground circuit at 12.47 KV primary voltage adjacent to your proposed building. As soon as I hear, I will let you know the scope of any modifications that need to be made in order to serve this new load. Thanks, Dennis 00 NYSEG Dennis Kuhn Electric Field Planner Ithaca Division 1387 Dryden Road Ithaca,NY 14850 Telephone 607-347-2501 Fax 607-347-2949 dkuhn(dnvseg.com Mr. Ronnie Macejewski Senior Vice President I Development Campus Advantage 110 Wild Basin Road, Suite 365 Austin, Texas 78746 Re: Verizon capacity for the State Street Triangle project To whom it may concern, It is anticipated that adequate Verizon facilities exist, within the immediate area, to provide service to the above noted location.This will include both standard copper and fiber optic based services. NOS is currently unavailable for this location. Any questions or concerns regarding Verizon service can be directed to me at 607-734-0279. Thank you. Regards, David Comer Verizon Outside Plant Engineer z � s J co m m 3 O 6 PARKING SPACES VAULT y L� cWi ASPHALT Z '¢- PARKING (Q BUILDING BUILDING No. 314-320 No. 101-1 1 1 i P, BRICK BUILDING NORTH AURORA STREET EAST STATE STREET o No. 326-330 x EAST STATE STREET STREET LINE Wes_ sue_ I N 1 STRUCTURE HAS WATER STREETLINE PIPES NOT VISIBLE CO CdETE WAL:C 'APLING —G IX PLING 12"TREE CURB Ui ® VPULT ® I ® ��VAULT IFLIiJG f N 15"iREE CURD C'UTkn RIM=417.4' $} ${ St St St S{ S{ St S S $t S{ G CLEAN OUT 12"HOPE INV-416.0' RIM=418.6' � �--- 4- - - - F- RIM=417.4' EAST STATE' STREET �l TB ARROWHEAD Q w RIM=417.6' ` STRIPING NE CL ELE —422.15' ZW W \ W 16"CAST IRON W W W W W `1'1 N Q U o TWO LANE CITY STREET '--- M=417. UNAB w 1� OPEN L LIDO RI 7' (/ S 18"PVC S Sp n SC \S a RIM=418.8' S:: RIM=422.3' ? S 416.4' 416.6E S m U E E E E E �� \ 12" 8• RIM=417.3' x, �— E E E E E E E E E ���, .5'-8.5' RIM=421.1' S N 414.1 St St St S{ St St St 12" DPE 41 S{ St St 12 HOPE St St S{ St St St �1 m CUFB CUT �\ m k S4PLINC LING SAPLIN 0 _I„ Z jl 5A Li 41 9 ( 1 �L ING `®LI m \ P.�.B. St ,.g CONCH\ WALK z� w �_ ,fl, fNETE WALK St 41 6 `r N', . PAS LO IC 9 Q 4 12 14"PI E / t R1 =418.4' BRICK — — — — — / SHRUBS MAPL ¢ZO u 43.7' 418— y^. ' RIM=418.1' No �- N 420— ��o a R CURBING \ SCAPED �, •"'- ,�� d' TIMBER AND �� F 0 \ J�0 BRICK \`;,! G i~j ay q''O a PAVER ' OBLOCKS WALL / h22 421 CRABAP LE O�C'Ci V J / \ G /I IISLANDPED I / h2� / \ 421 / I CRA PP W \ WALK O LANDSCAPED s. I a ENS•E\ Ago \ / / O ��P{��-�/// CONCRETE ISLAND RIM=418.4' NAm �m �� \ � /CRA PPE BR\oK 479 � _ 9 05 \ CRA PP 419 yc I O TITLE INFORMATION .0.1 s � / SIGH / ENTERLINE BUILDING N0.301 TOTAL OF 35 PARKING SPACES TREBLOC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY STRIPING BRICK POINTS ALONG WEST FACE OF BUILDING (SINGLE STORY BRICK=13,536 sq. ft.) RIM=421.0' CP ARE CLEAR OF STREET LINE DEED BOOK 548 PAGE 991 \ pyG1 TAX MAP NO.69-4- 1 \ / AREA=0.759 ACRES n22 3 a5 T - -� 0 420 ao CONCRETE WALK ei o. RIM=421.4' z/ \ g32 GµFS ® ON fi P V GATEWAY COMMONS BUILDING o. ti / �� \P NO.311 EAST STATE STREET RIM=421.2' (6 STORY BRICK BUILDING) / F TREE STEEL / �// \/ / GUARD A E� E�EC ELEC. MH LOCUST / ® CONCRETE WALK RIM=4 .0' 3 KTRSt / RIM=423.0' ASPHALT LANE / / / "\`��1�5�� ONE WAY TRAFFIC CONCRETE CURB TR N� GE,,Cr- �� 4�5� / / W W ASPHALT PATH /ONEµ / RIM=409.1' / INV=407.8' / ENTER INE (FULL OF DEBRIS) STRIPI G GREEK MILE k0Cb �0 GONGR SIX M �p \ NIn GO 0 IcD JNg\N° 0 i /0 51k Sti NGR `•.�\ DATA GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 60 Z 0 Ld O T :1 / / G In ry w Z T.G. MILLER, P.C. w 9 ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS m 203 NORTH AURORA STREET Q ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 z m WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM V) o ��I 607-272-6477 w ' v 0 w �_ O I 7::�mm T- 6 PARKING N SPACES m w w VAULT / 0 Z 1� ASPK"LT •I pARKING W y O UILDING I I G V) N0..• 101- 1 0 1 - 2 � I B I I G LL w SIRE LINE .. � o STRUCTURE HAS 'HATER .v f" • • • • •: • • .f + A A A A. .1-nA A A. •• •: • • ♦ STREETLINE. ,rty z PIPES NC.. ., \, .. •• •• .. Sr0 CRE1&WALK • • �1 Z '. •• 4 t • 12.. E •• • ' Ln LING 1 • CbR 111'• .• . .• •0• ,•. • WIULT'••••,®•. .••.' ®• • (gVA�LT NG 15"TREE• ` f ~: ••♦ • • •• •• J • • CURB CUT •2 • • W •t St St• St St St t St SN St Si _ _-G CLEAN OUT ' 12'HOPE INV.=416.0' RIM=418.6' LL Ir— #: _ — — EAST STATE STREET 7 N � Q W v / �-CEM,.,,. qU V �.J \ / �W S7 QRIM=41Z4 DI #1 i DI #2 16"CAST IRON DI #3 �- DI #4 _ _ w o g RIM=417.55 RIM=418.95 RIM=418.90 RIM=419.05 W z Q w U _ 76LF 12" HDPE - / W � 93LF 12" HDPE e- _ < RIM=422.3' CONNECT TO EXISTING St St St r �St St St r 30LF —sSo s 416•4' 416.6' Y N LLJ STORM MANHOLE Q� �2 yDpr � E I _E 12 '66 E —E4 Z O p E I O I c`. —c•.. St Si St RIM=421.1' Ste_ � � Ih 22LF 8" PVC(SDR35) 15LF 8" PVC SDR35 1-4 Z z •CONERErE WALx Q W W Wv -- .. E=4 Z o iis SEE— mill O :D V)i y. VESTIBULE+ RIM=418.1' LANDSCAPED ' •• A CONNEC ISTING 8" 8" D.I. COMBINED SERVICE. DAIND FIRE GATE VALVE IS�ND co�e�' '. Z z DUCTILE IRO WATE SERVICE MAINTAIN 5.0 COVER MIN. ' • W Y O LEASING (� RETAIL 19 �� Ica Z 0 RETAIL RETAIL LOBBY D.I. DOMESTIC SERVICE C,�, _ . . ``' ELEVATOR CGMMANO \ � . ••• '. � O Q. AND GATE VALVE STAIR 3 WALK:•.. H T- 0 419 RESTAURANT \ /-�P� •••• t , , �,.ONC>? ' � En U w o� Ij\l '• rn 0 N � TRASH — 13 CHUTE I (a J^ L ELEV 1 ELEv 2 /. TRASH L RECYCLING 4,9 . O Q 0 ELn U STORAGE - A J1 1 MAINTENANCE TITLE INFORMATION o . P9 41 / SIGN6 H 0 ENTERL.�,- / A'j 0 TREBLOC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY STRIPING FLOOR DRAIN #1 � �\ � > DEED BOOK 548 PAGE 991 $° S RIM=418.85 AMENITY w TAX MAP N0.69 4 1 '� fy 419 Q AREA=0.759 ACRES FLOOR DRAIN #2 Z RIM=418.85 O 41 7 (y Ld Ld O ` BIKE STORAGE 42C n, RETAIL a ` BGUNG,RY n3D RY ID , / �Q�+� 0 CONCRETE WALK U 0 -i 416 w O FITNESS / O 0 FIRE PUMP ROOM / i / \O • )' � GATEWAY COMMONS BUILDING 1 r TRASH � ST STATE STREET LLI R, V GATE 1N'° `" �P� + N6 STORY BRICK BUILDING Ln ~ 8 x6 QREDUCER � m p S� y0 , ' I 6 A D TREN H DRAIN 1 / ' / of 0 HOUSE STRAP BOILER ROOM R S=40 .80 w�9 w VVV 25LF 8" PVC (SDR35) \ 13 �OJ a 5 g PVCTGR TDR3 Z SANITARY LATER �p .c� 0 REROUTE LOWER Q \ NEW M ER APPROXIMATELY 145LF o AND R LA R gyp _ TELECOMM DUCT BANK CONCRETE WALK o W FRESH AIR / G� _ _ w INTAKE IN WALL 423.0' ! jam' , �o` � ASPHALT LANE st f / �� �F.5'(� ONE WAY TRAFFIC / DI #5 coNCRE1E cuae Yo RIM=410.75 NEW 8'x8' 1 ,500 KVA TRANSFORMER BY NYSEG oEc NEW MEDIUM PRESSURE z GAS SERVICE BY NYSEGcn W � N fTa •' „ ASPHALT PATH N O 2 NEW 6'x6' SWITCH LO Nti GEAR BY NYSEG n, ' • i A. m .r \ LLNOF DEBRIS) STRIPL, O ., 1 SIX MILE CREEK CA Q °� 0 CONNECT TO EXISTING / cam V) CATCH BASIN 0 o F' ,• SEAL , Jae\Nr 0 SHEET TITLE 0 c c E ' F� ' �N 0 ioNE � • • : UTI LITY WPC� PLAN (N GO"Gad` .•' 0 DATE: JOB No. 0 • •• 08/16/15 0 SCALE: El 5-12 DATA GRAPHIC SCALE AS SHOWN Q DRAWN BY: SHEET 0 20 40 60 CHECKED: C104 2 s AJS September 16, 2015 Re:State Street Triangle Apartments FEAF Construction & Logistics Memo In regards to the FEAF Concerns we would like offer the following responses to the items posed to the construction team IMPACT ON LAND i In order to protect the existing adjacent resources, both infrastructure and utilities,temporary excavation bracing will be employed. LeChase will provide temporary shoring along the exiting CONSTRUCTION roadways, as required,so that none of the existing subbase or utilities are compromised. SERVICES,L.L.C. Along the East Green Street side of the building we plan to utilize sheet piling to help stabilize the cut in the existing bank and preserve the existing pedestrian stairway. LeChase will also employ sheet piling along the foundation wall while construction occurs until such a time that the permanent retaining wall can be established. Corning Office 11849 East Corning Rd. IMPACT ON NOISE Corning,NY 14830 Tel 607-937-5464 The foundation construction will most likely entail drilled caissons. The Caissons are anticipated to be Fax 607-937-5452 drilled at a depth of approximately 75 feet. The anticipated pile drilling will be limited to 7:00 am to 4:00 pm on weekdays. The drilling schedule will be coordinated between the contractor and our subcontractors In order to prevent impacts from construction to pedestrians and surrounding users from noise from construction activities the following actions will be taken. Construction activities resulting in noises at and/or above(85 dB)decibels will be limited to 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM, Monday—Friday/Saturday. While there will be activities that result in noise above this 85dB threshold the intent is to begin this work after 8:00 am and conclude ahead of 6:00 in the evening so that the impact on the surrounding community is minimized. Additionally, in order to reduce the impact of noise on pedestrians and neighbors,the project will work to coordinate construction activities that produce excessive noise so that we can work to limit the amount of concurrent work with the adjacent downtown construction projects. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH As has been stated by the City,the project team will work with NYSDEC and when appropriate, NYS Department of Health,to ensure that all soils that are excavated are tested appropriately and disposed of as per the guidance and direction of the above stated agencies Sincerely, a ,1 Timothy Frost Sr. Project Manager September 16, 2015 Catherine De Almeida Whitham Planning& Design, LLC 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850 845-536-1296 Re: State Street Triangle Part 3 FEAF Catherine, The building will be supported by a deep foundation system. The piers are anticipated to be drilled caissons to the bearing substrata, supporting concrete column point loads. The caissons will need to be executed to the rock bearing stratum located approximately 50' to 70' from existing grade. The shallow foundation will be slab on grade with deepened exterior footings for frost protection. The anticipated pile drilling will be limited to 7:00 am to 4:00 pm weekdays. The drilling schedule will be coordinated by the contractor and their sub-contractors. The design of the foundation and required depths of the piers is based on a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Empire Geo Service,Inc.The geotechnical engineering report is attached for reference. As has been stated by the City, the project team will work with NYSDEC and when appropriate, NYS Department of Health, to ensure that all soils that are excavated and tested appropriately and disposed of as per the guidance and direction of the above-stated state agencies. Tatsuya Kiguchi, P.E., M.L.S.E. Bryant De La Cruz, P.E. Principal, Engineer of Record Project Manager Leap!Structures, PLLC 9 3001 S. Lamar Blvd. #230 Austin, TX 78704-8863 ^ 512.298.3999 • leapstructures.com ALLIANCE it � tOCC 12355 Sunrise Valley Drive,Suite 220,Reston,VA 20191 • Tel: 703-749-7941 • Fax: 703-749-7942 • www.allianceengineers.com September 16, 2015 State Street Triangle HVAC Systems In order to prevent impacts, especially to pedestrians from smell and air flow from mechanical vents the following actions will be taken. The building dwelling units will be conditioned by water source heat pump (WSHP) units, with central boilers and roof mounted, low profile cooling towers. Common areas and corridors will be conditioned via roof mounted air handling units. All exhausts for the common areas will be taken to the roof, either to exhaust fans or energy recovery ventilators (ERVs). The use of roof-mounted exhaust/ERVs will eliminate brick vents, resulting in reduced energy usage. Limited mechanicals will be visible from users, pedestrians, or vehicles driving on E. State Street or S. Aurora Street. Restaurant exhaust will be taken to the roof through HVAC shafts. All dwelling unit exhaust will be taken to roof mounted energy recovery ventilators resulting in reduced energy usage. This method eliminates the majority of the brick vents required for dwelling unit exhaust. Included with this memo are examples of the proposed mechanical equipment which will be installed on the roof: 1. Enervex System for kitchen, toilet and dryer exhaust. 2. Daikin Rooftop units with capabilities to provide 100% outside air and energy recovery ventilation. 3. Evapco Low Profile Cooling Tower. Keith Leadbetter, P.E. TRUE GREEN SAVINGS �4 � � I o � a _ N C' � o c z vi n �FMBE� off IEEE[ so ri lrrrl urn ■ ■ ME, ENERVEX-LI How Demand-Controlled Ventilation Works In a vertical subdivision(apartment, condominium, mixed-use building),the traditional exhaust system must operate at full The variable speed ventilator speed 24/7, regardless of how many appliances are running at features a quiet,low-profile given time.With demand-controlled ventilation,the design that is easily accessible any g for cleaning. system senses when no appliances are running and operates at a very low speed. Once the appliance starts,the internal appliance fan creates pressure inside the common duct.The system senses this pressure and begins increasing ventilation speed. The following illustration describes the The constant pressure controller modu- components and operation of a demand- lates the speed of single-phase and three-phase fans.It can be enclosed in controlled ventilation system: a NEMA panel,if it's installed outdoors and requires no maintenance. The subduct,which is 22-inche5 high,is located inside the main duct and — points upwards toward termination. The control wire connects the controller to the pressure dif- ferential sensor. Main duct(square or round) The exhaust source can be a dryer, sheet metal can have off-sets kitchen hood or bathroom vent. It emits the exhaust that must be ventilated out of the building. The pressure-differential sensor monitors pressure inside the main duct through a The duct probe connects the dud probe.It is powered by the controller common duct to the pressure- and provides the control signal to the differential sensor. controller.It can also be installed at the top of the main dud. Annual Energy Cost Savings System Operation Constant Air Demand- Demand-controlled ventilation provides substantial operat- Volume Controlled ing savings over a constant air volume system by reducing fan Ventilation energy consumption by up to 90%.As a result,the cost of Cost of Fan Operation $ 2,200 $ 260 conditioned air being exhausted is reduced by up to 80%. Cost of Conditioned Air $ 11,630 $ 1,630 The table shows typical operating savings from an eight-dryer Total Annual Cost $ 13,830 $ 1,890 system in a multi-story building. ENERVEX-L1 3 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN Savings and Sustainability Think you have to spend a lot of money and retrofit your building just to be "green?" Think again. At ENERVEX,we've been offering sustainable solutions long before it became trendy to do so. Consider the benefits of our demand-controlled ventilation system: ME :: ... . • min.COzEnergy Savings ...... k Life Cycle Cost,(LCC) - ® EXHAUSTO Demand Controlled Fixed Speed w Loss from exhaust conditioned air - - Over a 15 year period a typical demand- A typical dryer, kitchen or bathroom exhaust II controlled ventilation system serving eight system operates less than 30% of the day. dryers costs 55% less to operate a than a A demand-controlled exhaust system converts _ r fixed speed system. In addition it saves 85% this into energy savings of 85% -this could _ of the cost of exhausting conditi-ned air. amount to$500 per dryer or kitchen and $200 per bathroom. j l Material • * Space Saving Labor Savings Diversity 100 I ! 90 80 70 60 50 s" 40 30 Dryers 4 8 10 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 - ti A demand-controlled exhaust system can Using diversity saves floor space as smaller take 100% advantage of diversity, reduc- ducts add building open space. One square .~ ing duct sizes and thus material and labor. foot per floor in a 20 story building can save In addition multiple main ducts can be as much as $5-10,000 per duct riser. exhausted by a single fan. ENERVEX-L1 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN 4 YQuiet dlB Performance r - - ___ Awell-balanced demand-controlled system Architectural discharge vents,which collect eliminates noise from speed variations or grease, lint and dirt, are located on the wall, from fans running at full speed 24R. which makes them very difficult to clean. Because the demand-controlled system — discharges on the roof, it eliminates this problem. Reliabie Unmatched Performance �e With ENERVEX's variable speed, direct-drive Not only is the ENERVEX system fast in EFV exhaust fans, broken belts are a thing response to demand changes, it's also able of the past. Other than periodic duct and to maintain a+/-2% accuracy from setpoint. fan cleaning, no maintenance is required. Alternative solutions only achieve a+/-20% accuracy,so their savings are over 20% less. ENERVEX-L7 5 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN MDVS, Mechanical Dryer Venting System EA,MR, EQ,ID Ventilation: Multi Story Clothes Dryer QUALIFIED A IICatIOn The exhaust from the The controller can be Pp dryers is ventilated installed on the roof in The Mechanical Dryer Venting System(MDVS)is a demand- through the terming- in the a N enclosure or tion fan,which is attic. controlled ventilation system designed specifically for multi- located on the roof. story buildings that have dryers on each level. This illustr tion describes the system and its components. This is an alternative location for the duct probe and the pressure - differential sensor. MDVS is designed to work with both electric or gas r clothes dryers. This is the common main duct that serves all dryers. 4111. I The bottom of the duct is the optimal location of the probe and transducer. Diversity Diversity 100 90 In applications with multiple dryers, it is possible to use 80 diversity factors,which in statistics area representation of how many dryers are likely to be operating at a given time. Using 70 diversity factors will reduce main duct sizes but may not reduce 60 the fan size and the amount of air exhausted. Local codes must be consulted to determine whether this is possible. so ENERVEX's demand-controlled ventilation systems can 40 take full advantage of diversity.The fan may be larger than 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dryers necessary but it will still only exhaust based on demand. 4 s 10 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 E N E RVEX*"L7 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN 6 MDVS, Mechanical Dryer Venting System EA,MR, EQ,ID Ventilation: Central Clothes Dryer Facility QUALI ED Application The Mechanical Dryer Venting System(MDVS)is a demand- The exhaust from the dryers is ven- tilatedcontrolled ventilations stem designed specifically for multi- wich through the termination fan, Y 9 P Y which is located on the roof. story buildings that have a common dryer area, rather than dryers on each level.This illustration describes the system and its components. The common main duct serving all dryers is located inside the fire-rated chase. The M constant pressurere controller troller can be installed in the laundry — � room close to the dryers. d The common horizontal duct connects all dryers at a 45 degree angle. The end of the duct is the i.'# optimal location of the probe and transducer. MDVS is designed to work with both electric and gas The forced air louver, fired clothes dryers. located on the building envelope,is substantially The duct brings supply air smaller than a gravity into the facility. louver. The intake fan supplies make-up air at a demand- controlled rate. Supply of Make-up air In a laundry facility,traditional make-up air supply systems rely The fan senses this pressure and begins increasing air-supply on gravity to supply outside air, regardless of how many appli- fan speed. ances are running at any given time.With a demand-controlled make-up air supply,the system senses when no appliances are ENERVEX Modulating Air Supply System (MCAS)can be used running and operates at a very low speed, maintaining neutral in conjuncc unction with a MDVS system. pressure in the room. Once the appliance starts, it emits ex- haust,which drives the room pressure towards negative. EN E RVEXT"L7 7 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN MBESV, Modulating Building Exhaust System EA,MR, Ventilation: Kitchens & Bathrooms EQ ID QUALIFIED Application The Modulating Building Exhaust System(MBESV) is a demand-controlled ventilation system designed specifically for The variable speed The system can handle multiple main ventilator direct-drive ducts,which provides substantial ventilating kitchen hoods and bathroom fans in multi-story opens for easy cleaning. savings. buildings.This illustration describes the system and Its components. This is an alternative location of duct probe and pressure differential sensor. The MEC 18 constant pressure controller can be installed on thee roof in a NEMA enclosure or in the attic. The main duct is located inside the fire-rated chase. The subduct connects the kitchen hood or bathroom fan to the common duct. The bathroom fan ` connects to the subduct, which then connects to the common vent. The kitchen hood connects to the subduct, which then connects to the common vent. �s The bottom of the duct is the best location for the probe and transducer. — One set is needed for each duct. The bottom of the duct is A small logic controller monitors the the optimal location of the pressure and submits the proper probe and transducer. signal to the main controller. Renovation ENERVEX's MDVS and MBESV systems are extremely suitable for The savings provide a simple R01(5 years)of 632% and an retrofitting.This is an example from Potomac, MD where 8 months payback! 14 fixed-speed fans were replaced by 14 demand-controlled fan systems. Shaft Name No. of No. of Est loss of Est fan Total Annual Replacement shafts Systems conditioned air energy savings Energy savings Cost+ Labor Kitchen 14 87 $ 77,000 $ 10,600 $ 87,600 $ 59,825 ENERVEX-L7 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN 8 Quality Components BESB Low Energy Fan • Compact design -_ • High efficiency aluminum impeller guarantees • EXstream performance • Made from corrosion resistant material(indoor or outdoor installation) • Insulated housing and ultra-quiet operation •Variable-speed class A motor(inverter duty) •Access door with 180'opening angle and full duct access • Four sizes available, ETL and ETLc listed r BESB250 BESB250 BESB315 BESB400 BESB500 ^ Power Supply VAC 1x120 1x220-240 3x200-240/3x440-480 Amperage Amps 5.8 2.9 3.1/1.7 6.5/2.9 9.014.0 Motor Output HP(kW) 0.5(0.35) 1(0.75) 2(1.5) 3(2.3) RPM 1600 1400 1720 Weight Ibs(kg) 110(50) 126(57) 167(76) 227(103) Duct Connections Inch(mm) 10(250) 12(315) 16(400) 20(500) Max Capacity CFM(m3/h) 1,500(2,400) 1,250(2,000) 2,400(3,800) 4,300(6,800) 5,800(9,300) *Capacity in m3/h is based on 1,400 RPM for 220V/50Hz models. EFV Fan • Compact design • High efficiency aluminum impeller guarantees performance • Made from cast aluminum •Variable speed Class H motor • Five sizes available, ETL and ETLc listed EFV 200 EFV 250 EFV 315 EFV 400 EFV 450 Power Supply VAC 1x120 3x200-240/3x440-480 Amperage Amps 1.4 2.9 5.8 3.5/1.8 6.5/3.6 Motor Output HP(kW) 0.15(0.1) 0.2(0.16) 0.5(0.35) 1(0.75) 2(1.5) RPM 1600 1720 Weight Ibs(kg) 47(18) 60(26) 88(35) 127(58) 155(70) Dud Connections Inch(mm) 8(200) 10(250) 12(315) 16(400) 16(400) Max.capacity* CFM(m3/h) 600(800) 1,150 0,600) 2,000 0,000) 3,000 0,500) 4,000(6,000) *Capacity in m3/h is based on 1,400 RPM for 220V15CHz models. MEC 18 Mechanical Exhaust Control • Provides a constant pressure by modulating fan speed • Used where constant pressure is needed in the exhaust duct for on-demand control • Offers extremely accurate PID loop for perfect performance • Easy to operate Power Supply VAC 1 x 120(60 Hz)/1 x 240(50-60Hz) Amperage Amp 6.3/3.15 Operating Temperature OF/°C -4 to 104/-20 to 50 Range of Operation inWC/Pa 0-0.6/0-150 Output VAC 10-120/20-240 VDC 0-10 Weight Lbs(kg) 3.0(1.5) ENERVEX-L1 9 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN Performance You Can Count On Performance documented by independent testing In recent years, ENERVEX has participated in a major • By using an MDVS system,which controls the speed development project initiated and financed by Enbridge depending on the number of dryers in use, the loss Gas that has tested several dryer issues, including the of conditioned air can be reduced from 288,000 cu.ft. effects of using the MDVS system vs. fixed speed fans. (7,000 m3) per day per dryer to 40,000 cu.ft. The project was managed by National Gas Technologies (1,200 m3) per day per dryer in a typical 8-dryer system. Center(NGTC) in Montreal. Based on more than 35,000 hours of monitoring some of the results were: • When a common exhaust strategy is retained, additional electrical savings can be achieved through the use of a MDVS system. Electricity savings can reach • Using an MDVS control system has limited impact on 8,800 kWh/year. drying time but can contribute to a decrease in dryer's energy consumption by 3% while preventing up to • A rule of thumb formula has been developed to 10 times more conditioned air than necessary from estimate heating and cooling savings based on cooling exhausting to the outside. degree days and heating degree days. Conditioned Air Savings (cu.ft. per day per dryer) (based on 8-dryer dryer system located in Greater Toronto) Conditioned Air Loss to the Outside Laundry Utilization Profile (cu.ft. per day per dryer) Laundry Profile(% Laundry Profile(min % Dryers in Operation per day) per day) MDVS Fixed Speed Fan Savings 100 1.5 22 2,649 2,896 247 75 3.9 56 5,050 8,652 3,602 50 8.6 124 7,451 21,613 14,161 25 16.7 240 10,559 43,190 32,631 0 69.3 998 14,091 211,678 197,587 Total 100.0 1,440 39,800 288,029 248,229 WA it Annual Energy Cost Associated with Dryer Type and Exhaust System (based on 8-dryer dryer system located in Greater Toronto) US Dollars Multiple Dryer Venting Single Speed Fan System Variable Speed Fan System Savings Loss of Conditioned Air 4,764 675 4,089 Fan Operation 1,105 127 978 Total 5,869 802 5,067 EN ERVEX-1 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN 10 ENERVEX Success Stories Madrigal Lofts, Washington, DC Madrigal Lofts is a breathtaking new construction in Mount Vernon Place,one of the city's hottest neighborhoods.This 12-story,loft-style il condominium blends modern design and classic poetic form.It features 38 ENERVEX demand-controlled ventilation systems that exhaust the building's dryers and bathrooms. Demand-control ventilation offers significant energy savings over - Alft traditional ventilation system, - ti which has translated into lower — operating costs. - r —- -°� MW _ Park Potomac Place, Potomac, MD P When the residents of this high-end,ten story condominium tower began complaining about noise,the developers realized that the exhaust fans that vented the kitchen hoods were running constantly, I which caused a vibration in the ducts that could be heard all day long. k The developer opted to install ENERVEX's MBES demand-controlled w7 ventilation system,which reduced the exhaust rate from 24 hours a day to just one.But the MBES system didn't just reduce the noise;it reduced energy costs as well. By operating a variable speed fan JAIinstead 0 of single-speed fan, Park Potomac *' M y t Place would save almost$10,000 a n� L year.By investing only$60,000 in t ' _ [, � = s labor and materials, Park Potomac Place realized a short eight-month project payback and a 5-year R01 Americana-at-Brand, Glendale, CA Americana-at-Brand,an ambitious,mixed-use development project,combined upscale shopping with rich landscaping and a community-oriented environment.The developer,Caruso Affiliated, wanted to ensure optimal energy efficiency for the residences without compromising space or the architectural design of the building. The solution was a number of ENERVEX demand-controlled p ventilation systems that connected multiple dryers,kitchen hoods a - nd bathroom fans to a single exhaust duct.The system also features _ 24-hour modulating operation,which reduces the introduction of makeup air and adjusts the exhaust rate to meet current demands. ' Preliminary figures indicate that �li � ; this system can reduce energy consumption by at least 80%and _ ------ reduce heating and cooling losses by at least 60%. ■ 1 E N E RVEXT"L7 11 GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN ENERVEX - Made By Experience ENERVEX combines quality components, superior technology The FanCak Difference and experienced personnel to deliver a system that is econo- mical, environmentally sustainable,aesthetically pleasing and One of the many things that set ENERVEX apart from our reliable. In addition, our custom engineering and space saving competitors is our proprietary design software, FanCalc. design ensure that the project meets code requirements,as FanCalc allows our engineers to quickly and accurately design a well as the high standards of today's builders. At ENERVEX,we venting system because it contains extensive clothes dryer data, don't build a one-size-fits-all venting system.We understand such as operating and exhaust requirements,exhaust tempera- that each project is unique and our three-step process allows us tures, efficiency, ducts with k-values, resistance factors, insulation to design a venting system that meets the specific requirements factors and more. Instead of spending days or weeks analyzing of a given job. 1 data, our engineers can enter the information into FanCalc and receive a report that provides the appropriate sizing information, The ENERVEX Performance Guarantee code violation warnings and even design alternatives. Because ENERVEX designs the entire venting system,we take full responsibility for its operation. Contact ENERVEX for details. The ENERVEX Process Poo 1 14 1,Pre-sales analysis 2. System design 3. Engineering and installation This phase allows us to gather require- Using our FanCalc software,our engi- support ments and create a customized sizing neers design a system that takes into Every ENERVEX system comes report. consideration proper vent type applica- complete with job-specific AutoCAD tion, operating temperatures, pressure installation instructions and wiring losses and the risk of condensation. It diagrams. Our engineering support also provides specific wiring diagrams. teams have access to these files and are available to answer any questions that come up during installation. o 0 M ENERVEX and LEED ENERVEX's systems qualify for LEED points under the Energy&Atmosphere(EA), Mate- rials&Resources(MR), Indoor Environmental Quality(EQ)and Innovation & Design Process(ID)sections. ENERVEX has actively promoted low-energy installations, energy savings, indoor air quality and recycling for decades—long before it became "in". For years ENERVEX has been involved in the European legislation processes and has been a member of United States Green Building Council (USGBC)since 2005. 5M Unlike most manufacturers we didn't have to come up with "new" GREEN solutions —we have made them for decades! ENERVEX Inc. P:770.587. 31 E N E RVEXTM 1200 Northmeadow Pkwy. F:770.587.473 Suite 180 T 800.255.2923 Roswell,GA 30076 info@enervex.com GREEN BEFORE GREEN WAS IN USA www.enervex.com DA JFKJFN Ar � 4 �4 M IFr� 1 MaverickTM II Commercial Rooftop Systems 15 to 75 tons a �s OL 1W Maverick II Commercial Rooftop Systems System performance and reliability make Maverick II commercial packaged rooftop systems the ideal solution for new,retrofit or replacement applications on one to three-story buildings.Available in capacities from 15 to 70 tons,they combine the lower installation costs and interior space savings of a roof-mounted system with the operating and maintenance efficiencies of central heating and cooling systems. Applications range from offices and schools to libraries and strip malls.Arriving at your job site as a complete ,l package, Maverick II commercial rooftop systems maximize your design and installed cost savings.They -— also can add to your building's profit margins year after '`v t- year with efficient, reliable performance. 1-30 IL 01 10 j Maverick II rooftop systems are ideal for 100%dedicated outdoor air systems(DOAS). Units can be equipped with modulating hot gas 1 reheat to increase occupant comfort and avoid over-cooling and units can incorporate an optional energy recovery wheel that can drastically improve operational costs.Also available is a 100'temperature-rise furnace for unit operation in cold-weather climates. 1 _ r - •� w.A P 1 Modulating Hot Gas Reheat Energy Recovery Wheel Gas Furnace Tubes I V. _ 4 V OL, IL r{r. ?W a t.N" "Z�a, J F ill Durable and Affordable Protecting the Environment & Your Investment Fully Featured Energy Savings & Efficiency Maverick II commercial rooftop systems are competitively priced,yet Flat aluminum tubes with many provide features that set them apart from systems offered by other microchannels increase fluid-to- manufacturers.These include: Maverick II rooftop systems are designed with energy savings . tube heat transfer and reduce and efficiency in mind.All use HFC-410A(R-410A)—a non- refrigerant charge requirements. Standard low-leak dampers for superior resistance to air leakage ozone-depleting refrigerant with no phase-out concerns.And and reduced energy costs. ; all meet the requirements of ASHRAE \ Aluminum fins brazed between 90.1 —2007 Energy Standard for the year 2010.Many exceed adjoining tubes protect the fins Scroll compressors for efficient cooling operation and dependability. �� ��R o a from surface damage,which can this goal by as much as 15/o(see chart below). g Two-circuit refrigeration design for high reliability. inhibit cooling. Maverick II units over 20 tons provide five stages of capacity Easy access to mechanical components,which promotes routine ' control—utilizing lower-horsepower compressor motors maintenance and can reduce service costs. under part-load conditions.The result can be considerable . F Stainless steel,double-sloped drain pans per ASHRAE Standard energy savings(since most rooftop systems operate at full 62.1-2004 for good indoor air quality. load only 3%of the time). - - LEED°credits —_ Maverick II rooftop units utilize microchannel condensers, , which require a charge of only 1.0 lb.of R-410A refrigerant or 3 Standard low-leak dampers for superior resistance to air less per ton of cooling.This can earn you an extra LEED credit leakage and reduced energy costs. for Energy and Atmosphere in LEED for New Construction Version 2.2(Credit EAc4 in LEED-NC v2.2). Easy Maintenance & Service Hinged Access Doors — All Maverick II rooftop units are equipped with all-aluminum .. microchannel condenser coils,which are constructed of the Hinged access doors with quarter-turn �� y 1 I� ;k following items,oven-brazed together: � � , �� �,� Rooftop • latches on both sides of the unit put ,�, Extruded flat tubes with many small flow channels all components within easy reach for , , N ��� arranged in a two-bypass configuration.These tubes maintenance and service. ,i '1 d ' - ' provide better fluid-to-tube heat transfer than traditional w round tubes and more heat transfer per square foot than traditional coils.They also require much less refrigerant charge per ton of cooling. `,� ;��__ 3� �: f � • Aluminum fins brazed between the adjoining tubes.This T. arrangement protects the fins from the surface damage that is common in traditional coil arrangements which can inhibit cooling performance and is difficult to comb out. I This all-aluminum construction eliminates galvanic corrosion (which occurs when dissimilar metals,such as copper and \ aluminum,are in contact with each other).As a result, Maverick 11 rooftop systems are available with EERs that all-aluminum condensers are more resistant to corrosion in p exceed ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requirements for the year 2010, an y environment,including seacoast applications. which are approximately 6%more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-2004 requirements. I v �T +4r f 40 4 �"', Te �. tN\\ � lk- Av, - t Unique Features and Options Maverick 11 Commercial Rooftop Systems Airfoil Plenum Fan Durable Construction • Energy efficient e • Pre-painted exterior cabinet panels pass 750-hour ASTM B 117 Salt Spray Test for durability Economizer e • 1" seismic spring • Weather-resistant construction with capped seams vibration control and sloped top panels • CO2 con • Class II constructi • Double-wall construction protects R-4 insulation • DCV con • Premium efficien operatio and provides wipe-clean surface outdoor .f Low Leak Ot • 4 cfm/ft2 to meet ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 Microchannel Condenser Coils • Double-wall blades • Proven technology from the • Blade edge and jamb seals / automotive industry • Suited for R-410A / 4^ Hinged Access Doors � _ • All aluminum design • On both sides of un -, • No corrosion between fins, access to all compoi -•�t !z i �, tubes and header • Easy-open, quarter- • "c • Double-wall constrL-,.-., '` • protects insulation during maintenance AAP �1 �• Scroll Compressors Provide maximum dependability, Exhaust Fans with e efficiency and quiet operation BuildingPressure G �� -- • Five stages of capacity control • Provide better bL...-..., r for efficient DAT control operations, higher customer Optional compressor isolation satisfaction - __ '�'. valves 2"/4" Combination Filter T • Provides more flexibility building filtration requi r/ • 2" MERV 6 filters shippe owner preference there R410A Refrigerant Double-Sloped Drain Pan a s • No ozone depletion potential or phase-out date Gas Heat • Prevents corrosion MicroTech®III Unit Controller • 10.0 EER, meets ASHRAE 90.1-2007 energy • Tubular heat exchanger for requirements for the year 2010 • Avoids standing water for • Open Choices-feature provides interoperability with maximum heat transfer q y high IAQ BACnet or LONMARK certified communications for easy • Dual refrigerant circuits provide redundancy for integration into your building automation system of choice. • Four-stage capacity control high unit reliability • Outdoor air and humidity control logic maintains minimum Optional 4-to-1 modulation control on low heat fresh air intake and optimum humidity levels. • Optional 8-to-1 modulation control on high heat r 'i♦F45� �•�= 4'• s ! --s sue+ f ',�t ���� 1r + to .4it d% Ilk" A .�if A _ A 1 Make it a Complete System for Optimum System Performance and Reliability STEP 1 Choose a Mavercik 11 for • • - or 1 1 ' , CIA Applications Maverick TMII Commercial Rooftop Systems 15 to 75 tons STEP For 100% CIA ApplicationsChoose Terminal Units Daikin VRVs SmartSourceTm High Efficiency with Cassettes Water Source Heat Pumps ZOIN ,11W VAVs Unit Ventilators Fan Coil Units T 0 The following are tradenames or registered trademarks of their respective companies: BACnet from ASHRAE;Modbus from Schneider Electric Ltd;MicroTech III,Open Choices, from Daikin;LONIV ARK,LonTalk,and LONWORKs are managed,granted and used by LONMARK International under a license granted by Echelon Corporation. 800.432.1342 Contract Holder 02013 Daikin Applied www.DaikinApplied.com A/SP 31-291(10/13) Contract GS-07F-0377V Bulletin 701B j E a HVAC GUIDIEFr=ATuRr=s S& APPLICATIONS Jalva C. �i= - � --- SPECIALISTS IN HEAT TRANSFER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES EXPERIENCE, INNOVATION, GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE VAPCO engineers are credited as inventors on more than 45 U.S. Patents and their foreign counterparts. This engineering expertise speaks for itself and provides an exceptional foundation for various product develop- ment projects. This foundation is the catalyst for provid- ing customer driven features and benefits in an environmentally safe manner. The state of the art Research & Development Center, lo- lnce its founding in 1976, EVAPCO, Incorporated has cated at EVAPCO's World Headquarters in Taneytown, become an industry leader in the engineering and Maryland USA, has over 60,000 square feet dedicated to manufacturing of quality heat transfer products around the world. EVAPCO's mission is to provide first class thermal analysis and product development. Experienced service and quality products for the following markets: R&D engineers perform product and application research ■ Commercial HVAC year round in six environmental test chambers. ■ District Energy The Research & Develop- ■ Industrial Process ■ Industrial Refrigeration ment Center features cus- ■ Power tomized laboratories that are designed to conduct EVAPCO's powerful combination of financial strength and - tests through a wide technical expertise has established the company as a recog nized manufacturer of market-leading products on a world- range of environmental wide basis. EVAPCO is also recognized for the superior conditions. The comput- technology of their environmentally friendly product inno- erized data acquisition vations in sound reduction and water management. system records the data EVAPCO is an employee owned company with a strong em- and graphically displays continuous results,thereby pro- phasis on research &development and modern manufac- viding the R&D engineers with valuable test information turing plants. EVAPCO has earned a reputation for on a continuous basis. technological innovation and superior product quality by featuring products that are designed to offer these oper- The Research & Development Center also has the indus- ating advantages: try's largest Low Temperature Environmental Test Cham- ■ Higher System Efficiency ber. This test chamber was converted from ammonia to ■ Environmentally Friendly CO2 refrigerant in order to perform detailed thermal ■ Lower Annual Operating Costs analysis on steel evaporators. ■ Reliable, Simple Operation and Maintenance With an ongoing commitment to Research & Development In addition,the R&D Center also houses Evapco's Water programs, EVAPCO provides the most advanced products in Analytical Services group which performs advanced the industry—Technology for the Future,Available Today! chemical and water analysis in support of Pulse-Pure® and Smart Shield'"Water Treatment Systems, an AMCA " Fan Test Chamber for evaporator fan performance --_ _ --4 verification, and an ice thermal storage system with glycol ice ;., chiller for developing charge and discharge performance ratings. Product sound ratings are measured on a Y i dedicated Sound Test Pad located on the property. EVAPCO products are manufactured in 17 locations in 8 EVAPCO products are the result of extensive research and countries around the world and supplied through a sales thermal testing. As a result, EVAPCO products deliver network consisting of over 170 offices. guaranteed performance in order to maximize system performance. ©201 1 EVAPCO,Inc. 2 DELIVERING QUALITY. . . FOCUSED ON PERFECTION Features and Applications Guide EVAPCO offers an extensive selection of Open Cooling Towers and Closed Circuit Coolers for all types of applications. The below chart can help guide you to the selection of your next EVAPCO Unit! Cooling Towers Applications Features Principle of Operation AT/UT/USS AT:A compact,low horsepower • 32 to 4,995 nominal tons. induced draft,axial fan solution • Hot Saturated Discharge Air Efficiently designed using counter-for all outdoor applications. flow operation. UT:All of the benefits of the AT • The UT utilizes Evapco's state-of- Eliminators t plus EVAPCO's Super Low the-art Super Low Sound Fan for Hot Sound Fan for sound sensitive the lowest sound levels. r Water In applications. • The USS is an all-stainless steel unit USS:Suitable for high with a Type 316 Stainless Steel cold MIR II corrosion areas subject to salt- water basin and a Type 304 r z spray and other corrosive Stainless Steel upper section for Aryl chemicals. superior corrosion resistance. Entteering • CTI certified,IBC compliant, ir y CooWatled ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. Out PMTQ Low horsepower,low sound, • 105 to 1,304 nominal tons. Hot Saturated Discharge Air forced draft unit suitable for • Super Low Sound Fans and man- outdoor applications. sized access doors are standard on ot Perfect for centrifugal fan every model. W -0 Drift ; replacement projects and • Individual fan drive systems are Eliminators projects requiring low standard. horsepower or directional . CTI certified,IBC compliant, sound. ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. Coro' D EnterYng Cooled Air Water - - - Out LSTE Low sound,centrifugal fan, • 156 to 1,349 nominal tons. Hot Saturated Discharge Air forced draft unit suitable for • Optional sound attenuation can both indoor and outdoor reduce sound levels even further. applications. Hot CTI certified,IBC compliant, Drift Wat r p EliminatorsIn Designed especially for indoor ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. and ducted layouts. This classic design is also ideal for exact replacement projects. cnnl 9.' a Dry Entering Cooled Air Water ^� Out LPT Low profile,low sound, • 38 to 333 nominal tons. Hot Saturated Discharge Air centrifugal fan,forced draft 304 stainless steel cold water basin unit suitable for both indoor is standard. and outdoor applications. at" Eli°�a or • Compact design allows for units to to a Minimal height design allows be shipped and rigged in one — for placement in height piece. Dryil goo restricted areas. Provides a CTI certified,IBC compliant, E mr compact and versatile option ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. cooled for tight layouts. Water Closed Circuit Coolers Applications Features Principle of Operation ESWA A low horsepower induced • 88 to 1,854 tons. Hot Saturated Discharge Air draft,axial fan solution for all • Utilizes both sensible and latent outdoor applications. heat transfer for increased energy Innovative design combining efficiency. ��— both fill and a closed circuit coil • Sensi-Coil®technology provides makes this unit ideal for wet increased surface area for cooling applications where additional heat transfer capability. thermal and energy efficiency is The coil is out of the air stream for the utmost concern. reduced scaling potential,water Aryl CFo"lAd noise,and winter heat loss. En Air °It Air • Ho CTI certified,IBC compliant, ire ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. In (cont.) 3 DELIVERING QUALITY. . . FOCUSED ON PERFECTION Closed Circuit Coolers ,Applications Features Principle of Operation eco-ATWE g g WATER EFFICIENT MODE The ground-breaking Induced • 10 to 615 nominal tons. geA, draft,axial fan solution for all . Extended surface Ellipti-finr"coil outdoor applications where and dual pumps provide the water a savings is primary 9 p y option to operate in a variety of Hat concern. modes. , Eliminators The design allows for three • Sage®water and energy saving Ha F1.id Hrd Fluid In ` modes of operation:100%wet, control panel is standard with 100%dry,or a hybrid wet/dry every unit. tolddut Fluid Uildd Fluid mode for increased dry • CTI certified,IBC compliant, pId Cold performance and water ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. "° „„9rf r ArIn efficiency. d.na rs Spray Pump A Spray P urp e (On) 1 eco-ATW Revolutionary reduced • 10 to 2,552 nominal tons. EVAPORATIVE MODE Hor footprint,reduced horsepower, Extended surface Ellt finr"coil sat°rated Dis<narge Air o induced draft,axial fan solution provides the option to operate Fan for all outdoor applications. either wet or dry. Perfect for tight layouts and • Available with optional Sage® projects focused on energy water and energy saving control Hat l^Fluid Hot Fluid ' efficiency. panel. • CTI certified,IBC compliant, n,C Fluid Cold Fluid ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. Dui f Dut Arin +� .•, �'r Ab In Spray^'mp ATWE The original induced draft,axial • 6 to 1,550 nominal tons. Hut Saturated Discharge Air fan solution available for a . Available with optional Super Low broad range of outdoor cooling Sound Fan and stainless steel 1731111111111177 capacities. construction. n� This unit is available in a wide • CTI certified,IBC compliant, 4. Hot er selection of box sizes making it ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. In ideal for almost any layout =� Cooled including centrifugal unit ool '► out replacement projects. Dry Entering Air PMWQ Low horsepower,low sound, • 108 to 1,031 nominal tons. Hot Saturated Disd,arge Au axial fan,forced draft unit . Standard with Super Low Sound suitable for outdoor Fans. applications. . Individual fan drive systems. Fundy e Perfect for centrifugal fan . CTI certified,IBC compliant, Fluid « replacement projects and ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. projects requiring low horsepower or directional sound. Cool Dry ' r _ E Ai,ng Air LSWE Low sound,centrifugal fan, • 15 to 848 tons. Hot Saturated Discharge Air forced draft unit suitable for . Optional sound attenuation can Drift both indoor and outdoor p Eliminators 4 reduce sound levels even further. Distribution applications. System CTI certified,FM approved,IBC Fluid In Y G� Designed especially for indoor compliant,ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. Coil and ducted layouts. This classic Fluid lu Out design is also Ideal for exact F e„°�oE"�o'e pair replacement projects. FFn an is Motors E 1E d ��pd Entering d E d dn�e. Air Eli LRWB Low profile,low sound, • 9 to 223 tons. Hot Saturated Discharge Air centrifugal fan,forced draft . Standard with 304 stainless steel Drift unit suitable for both indoor cold water basin. Eurinaturs WatersDrtembution and outdoor applications. • uil :r Compact design allows for units to Fluid Minimal height design allows be shipped from the factory and In _ for placement in height rigged in one piece. Fluidout Doti, , rrestricted areas. Provides a . CTI certified,IBC compliant, E coal compact and versatile option ASHRAE 90.1 compliant. Air for tight layouts. DELIVERING QUALITY. . _ FOCUSED ON PERFECTION Design Features Thermal-Pak° Cooling Coil All Evapco Closed Circuit Coolers utilize EVAPCO's patented EVAPCO offers an extensive list of features on every single Thermal-Pak°coil design which assures greater operating HVAC product sold to market. Since 1976, EVAPCO has efficiency.The elliptical tube design allows for closer tube continued its strive towards innovation. Below are many of spacing, resulting in greater surface area per plan area than the design features EVAPCO offers on its HVAC products. round-tube coil designs. In addition,the Thermal-Pak° design has lower resistance to airflow and also permits EVAPAK° Fill greater water loading, making the Thermal-Pak®coil the The EVAPAK®fill design used in all Cooling Towers and the most effective design available. ESWA Closed Circuit Cooler is specially designed to induce highly turbulent mixing of the air and water for superior 'IJ ` ,r cj r heat transfer. Special drainage tips allow high water 0' loadings without excessive pressure drop. The fill is K constructed of inert polyvinyl chloride,(PVC),will not rot or J decay,and is formulated to withstand water temperatures of 130T(55'C). A higher temperature fill is available for Thermal-Pak®Coil by EVAPCO Round Tube Coil by Others water temperatures exceeding 130T(55'C). Consult your EVAPCO representative for further details. Sensi-COII®Technology (us Patent#7,296,620) Because of the unique way in which the crossfluted sheets The Sensi-Coil®,exclusive on the ESWA closed circuit are bonded together,and the bottom support of the fill cooler,features the maximum amount of Thermal-Pak section,the structural integrity of the fill is greatly elliptical tubes packed enhanced, making the fill usable as a working platform. I I I closely together in a coil EVAPAK®has excellent fire resistant qualities, having a I arrangement designed with flame spread rating of 5 per ASTM E84 81a. over 20% additional coil surface area. Evapco's coils are manufac- Sensi-Coil® tured within the most strin- gent of quality control procedures. Each circuit consists of high quality steel tubing formed into a continuous serpen- tine circuit. Each circuit is then inspected and tested prior to being welded into a framed coil assembly.The coil assembly is then pneumatically tested at 400 psig under water to en- sure its integrity.The entire coil assembly is then hot-dip galvanized for industrial strength corrosion protection. Titan Coil NOW Evapco offers the optional TITAN COIL. Manufac- tured from type 304L Stainless Steel,the TITAN COIL is Optional Fill Types manufactured using Evapco's patented elliptical tube Evapco also offers alternate fills as an option on most design upgraded to Xtra Tough construction featuring: cooling towers for special applications. Consult your Xtra Durability,Xtra Corrosion Resistance,and an Xtra long Evapco representative for further details. 5 YEAR coil warranty as standard.The TITAN COIL is avail- able in both the Thermal-Pak and Sensi-Coil designs Titan-Pak stainless steel fill is designed for corrosive and high temperature applications.The Titan Pak fill is Elllptl J°12'M Technology (Patent Pending) constructed completely of stainless steel and is fire retardant. If properly maintained this stainless steel fill will Featuring Elliptical Spiral Fin Coil Technology last the life of the cooling tower. EVAPCO has developed the most efficient closed circuit Wide-Pak cross fluted fill is often used in dirty water cooling coil in the HVAC industry! All coil rows feature applications. Wide-Pak fill has a lower surface area than patent pending finned Thermal-Pak elliptical tube design. EVAPAK°fill,therefore the tower will need to be sized The Ellipti-finTM lowers airflow resistance more than appropriately to account for the change in available typical finned round tubes.This design increases capacity. evaporative and dry cooling capacity thereby saving VERTICLEAN®vertical fluted fill is often used in dirty water both energy and water. applications and can handle oil or greases in the system up to 5 PPM. VERTICLEAN®fill has a lower surface area than the —• Wide-Pak fill,therefore the tower will need to be sized appropriately to account for the change in available capacity. r'"" 5 DELIVERING QUALITY. . . FOCUSED ON PERFECTION Patented Efficient Drift Eliminators WST Air Inlet Louver An extremely efficient drift eliminator system is standard on Evapco's water and sight tight(WST) louvers keep water in all EVAPCO Cooling Towers and Closed Circuit Coolers. The and sunlight out of induced draft products. The unique system removes entrained water droplets from the air non-planar design is made from light-weight framed PVC stream to limit the drift rate to less than 0.001% of the sections which have no loose recirculating water rate. hardware, enabling easy unit With a low drift rate, EVAPCO units can be located in access. The louver's air channels are areas where minimum water carryover is critical, such as optimized to block all line-of-sight parking lots or building walls. paths into the basin eliminating The drift eliminators are constructed of an inert polyvinyl splash-out;even when the fans are _ chloride(PVC)plastic material which effectively eliminates off. Additionally,algae growth is corrosion of these vital components. They are assembled in minimized by blocking all sunlight. sections to facilitate easy removal for inspection of the water distribution system. Stainless Steel Strainers The EVAPCO standard for many years,the stainless steel strainer is one component of the cooling tower subject to excessive wear and II , t! corrosion. With stainless steel construction,this component will last the life of the cooling tower. (U.S.Patent#6,315,804) CTI Certified-Standard 201 t Pressurized Water Distribution System Every Evapco cooling tower and closed EVAPCO's Induced Draft Cooling Tower water distribution circuit cooler is independently certified system is made of schedule 40 PVC pipe and EvapJet"ABS by the Cooling Technology Institute(CTI). plastic water diffusers This certification guarantees that the unit will meet the for corrosion rated capacities eliminating the necessity for costly field protection in this key performance tests. area.The piping is easily removable for cleaning. The water Exclusive Five (5) Year Motor RANO diffusers have a 1 inch & Drive Warranty o° diameter(25mm) g n opening and are Evapco provides each unit with a 5 year practically impossible motor and drive warranty which covers !L _ �1 to clog. They also have the fan(s), bearings, pulleys,shafts, belts, 9RR AN an anti-sludge ring gear reducer(s), drive shaft(s), drive couplings, extending into the headers to prevent electric fan motor(s)and mechanical equipment supports sediment from building up in the diffuser on both belt and gear drive units. opening. In addition,the spray branches have threaded end caps to allow easy debris removal. ''` International Building Code (IBC) Closed circuit coolers,which have a Compliant Designs different spray pattern requirement than cooling towers, use the ZM°II nozzle. In its continuing commitment to be the These nozzles are threaded into the PVC leader in evaporative cooling equipment header pipe at the proper orientation and design and services, EVAPCO has Inde- p ' have a large orifice to prevent clogging. pendently Certified its units to withstand COMPLIANT Nozzle Seismic and Wind Loads in ALL Geo- DESIGNS graphic Locations and Installations in ac- cordance with IBC 2006. t Mark owned by the Cooling Technology Institute DELIVERING QUALITY. . _ FOCUSED ON PERFECTION Easy Maintenance Basin Designs Stainless Steel Options EVAPCO has designed their HVAC products with future All Evapco cooling towers and closed circuit coolers are maintenance in mind. The Cold Water Basin is the most constructed of G235 Hot-Dip galvanized steel as standard. important area of the product to maintain. Dirt and A variety of stainless steel construction upgrade options Debris collect in the basin and must be cleaned out are available in both 304 and 316 stainless steel, including regularly. EVAPCO has designed their Cold Water Basins to stainless steel cold water basins and complete stainless allow for quick and easy access. Some of our features are steel units. described below. Easy Access Easy Maintenance Drive System The cold water basin section on Induced Draft Units is easily All Evapco cooling towers and closed circuit coolers come accessible from ground level by simply loosening the(2)two standard with premium efficient, inverter-ready fan motors Quick Release Fasteners that can be used with variable frequency drive(VFD)systems on the inlet louver for precise capacity control. assemblies surrounding The mechanical drive systems the cooling tower and _ are easy to access and easy to lifting out the maintain. Bearing lubrication lightweight louver. and belt adjustment can be The basin can be performed from outside the accessed from all (4) unit. All units with T.E.F.C. _ four sides of the unit. fan motors located outside of This open basin design the unit are protected with a removable motor cover or enables the unit to be jJ10fan screen. easily cleaned. T.E.A.O,motors located inside .. the fan casing are mounted Louver Access Door on a swing-out motor mount .I on an adjustable base for To aid in basin maintenance, many Induced Draft models can easy removal. be equipped with an optional louver access door. This feature allows easy access to perform routine Low Sound Solutions maintenance and inspection ;a of the makeup assembly, strainer screen and basin ;7r. Super Low Sound Fan (optional) without removing an entire ' ' ,•••i The Super Low Sound Fan offered by EVAPCO utilizes an inlet louver. y" li _ extremely wide chord blade design available for sound This feature is standard on 51*.J sensitive applications where the lowest sound levels are models with 5'and taller desired.The fan is one-piece molded heavy duty FRP louver sizes. construction utilizing a forward swept blade design.The Super Low Sound fan Clean Pan Design is capable of reducing the unit sound EVAPCO units feature a completely sloped basin from the pressure levels 9 upper to lower pan section. This"Clean Pan" design allows dB(A)to 15 dB(A), the water to be completely drained from the basin. The depending on specific spray water will drain from the upper section to the unit selection and depressed lower pan section where the dirt and debris can measurement location be easily flushed out through the drain. This design helps compared to the prevent buildup of sedimentary deposits, biological films original EVAPCO fan. and minimizes standing water. Note:on 4'wide units,the pan is sloped without the step. Forced Draft Sound Attenuation (optional) 1 The centrifugal fan design of Evapco's forced draft coolers„ and towers operates at lower sound levels which make these units preferable for installations where noise is a concern. For extremely noise sensitive applications,these centrifugal fan models may be supplied with various optional stages of intake and/or discharge attenuation packages,which greatly reduce sound levels even further. • EVAPCO PRODUCTS ARE MANUFACTURED WORLDWIDE. World Headquarters/ ; Research and Development Center 0 EVAPCO Facilities EVAPCO, Inc. World Headquarters & Research/Development EVAPCO, Inc. • P.O. Box 1300 •Westminster, MD 21158 USA PHONE:410-756-2600 • FAX: 410-756-6450 • E-MAIL: marketing@evapco.com EVAPCO North America EVAPCO Europe EVAPCO EVAPCO, Inc. EVAPCO Europe,N.V. EVAPCO Asia/Pacific Headquarters World Headquarters EVAPCO Newton European Headquarters 1159 Luoning Rd.Baoshan Industrial Zone 701 East Jourdan Street Industrieterrein Oost 4010 Shanghai,P.R.China,Postal Code:200949 P.O.Box 1300 Newton,IL 62448 USA 3700 Tongeren,Belgium Phone:(86)21-6687-7786 Westminster,MD 21158 USA Phone: 618-783-3433 Phone:(32)12-395029 Fax:(86)21-6687-7008 Phone:410-756-2600 Fax: 618-783-3499 Fax:(32)12-238527 E-mail:marketing@evapcochina.com Fax:410-756-6450 E-mail:evapcomw@evapcomw.com E-mail:evapco.europe@evapco.be E-mail:marketing@evapco.com EVAPCO-BLCT Dry Cooling,Inc. EVAPCO Europe,S.M. EVAPCO(Shanghai)Refrigeration EVAPCO East 981 US Highway 22 West Via Ciro Menotti 10 Equipment Co.,Ltd. 5151 Allendale Lane Bridgewater,New Jersey 08807 USA 1-20017 Passirana di Rho 1159 Louning Rd.,Baoshan Industrial Zone Taneytown,MD 21787 USA Phone: 1-908-379-2665 Milan,Italy Shanghai,P.R.China,Postal Code:200949 Phone: 410-756-2600 E-mail:info@evapco-blct.com Phone: (39)02-939-9041 Phone:(86)21-6687-7786 Fax: 410-756-6450 Fax: (39)02-935-00840 Fax:(86)21-6687-7008 Refrigeration Valves& E-mail:evapcoeurope@evapco.it E-mail:marketing@evapcochina.com E-mail:marketing@evapco.com Systems Corporation Y P EVAPCO Europe,S.r.l. Beijing EVAPCO Refrigeration A wholly owned subsidiary of EVAPCO,Inc. Via Dosso 2 �- g g EVAPCO Midwest 1520 Crosswind Dr. 23020 Piateda Sondrio,Italy Equipment Co.,Ltd. 1723 York Road Yan Qi Industrial Development District Bryan,T9 7-778 USA EVAPCO Europe,GmbH Huai Rou Count Greenup,IL 62428 USA Phone: 979-778-0095 P y Phone:217-923-3431 Fax: 979-778-0030 Bovert 22 Beijing,P.R.China,Postal Code:101407 Fax:217-923-3300 E-mail:9-778-0030 com D-40670 Meerbusch,Germany Phone: (86)10 6166-7238 E-mail:evapcomw@evapcomw.com Phone: (49)2159-69560 Fax: (86)10 6166-7395 McCormack Coil Company,Inc. Fax: (49)2159-695611 E-mail:evapcobj@evapcochina.com A wholly owned subsidiary of EVAPCO,Inc. E-mail:info@evapco.de EVAPCO West y y EVAPCO Australia(Pty.)Ltd. 1900 West Almond Avenue P.O.Box 1727 Flex coil a/s 34-42 Melbourne Road Madera,CA 93637 USA 6333 S.W.Lakeview Boulevard A wholly owned subsidiary of EVAPCO,Inc. RO.Box 436 Lake Oswego,OR 97035 USA Knosgardvej 115 Riverstone,N.S.W.Australia 2765 Phone: 559-673-2207 Phone: 503-639-2137 DK-9440 Aabybro Denmark Phone: (61)2 9627-3322 Fax: 559-673-2378 Fax: 503-639-1800 Phone: (45)9824 4999 Fax: (61)2 9627-1715 E-mail:contact@evapcowest.com E-mail:mail@mmccoil.com Fax: (45)9824 4990 E-mail:sales@evapco.com.au E-mail:info@flexcoil.dk EVAPCO Iowa EvapTech,Inc. EVAPCO S.A.(Pty.)Ltd. EvapTech Asia Pacific Sdn.Bhd 925 Quality Drive A wholly owned subsidiary of EVAPCO,Inc. A licensed manufacturer of EVAPCO,Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of EvapTech,Inc. Lake View,IA 51450 USA 8331 Nieman Road 18 Quality Road IOI Business Park,2/F Unit 20 Phone: 712-657-3223 Lenexa,KS 66214 USA Isando 1600 Persiaran Puchong Jaya Selatan Fax: 712-657-3226 Phone: 913-322-5165 Republic of South Africa Bandar Puchong Jaya, Fax: 913-322-5166 Phone: (27)11-392-6630 47170 Puchong,Selangor,Malaysia E-mail:marketing@evaptech.com Fax: (27)11-392-6615 Phone:(60-3)8070 7255 EVAPCO Iowa E-mail:evapco@evapco.co.za Fax:(60-3)8070 5731 Sales&Engineering Tower Components,Inc. E-mail:marketing-ap@evaptech.com 215 1st Street,NE A wholly owned subsidiary of EVAPCO,Inc. Evap Egypt Engineering Industries . P.O.Box 88 5960 US HWY 64E A licensed manufacturer of EVAPCO,Inc. MN 55049 USA 5 s Nasr Road Medford, Ramseur,NC 27316 Nar City,Cairo,Egypt ° Mixed Sources /1 Phone:507-446-8005 Phone: 336-824-2102 Phone:2 02 24022866/2 02 24044997 Pr,d,ctgrouPfromwell-managed l' Fax:507-446-8239 Fax: 336-824-2190 Fax:2 02 24044667/2 02 24044668 reryae'd`000aorrmerr`es'.a E-mail:evapcomn@evapcomn.com E-mail:mail@towercomponentsinc.com E-mail:Primacool@link.net/Shady@primacool.net FSC .1996c.rr51.td,hipCOG080211 ,,w.f F.o,g 6le rt no.iP COC-1 EVAPCO...SPECIALISTS IN HEAT TRANSFER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. 3M/7-11/DGD Bulletin 701B Visit EVAPCO's Website at: http://www.evapco.com @20I I EVAPCO,Inc. EVAPCO, INC. '�"� �� UNIT CLOSED CIRCUIT COOLER MODEL# SCALE I DWG.# REV. DATE SERIAL# LRWB 8-6012 NTS WV081212-ERG-ST 7/30/2015 NOTES: 1 .(M)-FAN MOTOR LOCATION 2. *-APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS DO NOT USE FOR PRE-FABRICATION OF CONNECTION PIPING — J 3. MPT DENOTES MALE PIPE THREAD FPT DENOTES FEMALE PIPE THREAD BFW DENOTES BEVELED FOR WELDING 4. +UNIT WEIGHT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCESSORIES(SEE SEPARATE DRAWINGS _Tl J FOR ACCESSORIES) 7-1011 5. 3/4"DIA. MOUNTING HOLES. REFER TO RECOMMENDED STEEL SUPPORT DRAWING 6. MAKE-UP WATER PRESSURE-20 psi MIN, vvvvv SO psi MAX 4` J FACE 2 J (M) FACE 1 18'-2 5/8" - j 24 1/2* 44 7/8* �` PLAN VIEW (2) 4 BFW 75 FLUID IN (2) 1/2 FPT V lw 3 1/4 TYP. * 69 3/4 42 ENT 11 79 3/4 I ACCESS (2) 4 BFW 3 MPT 5 1/4 ACCESS DOOR FLUID OUT OVERFLOW 36 1/4 DOOR 0 20 1/8 (M) 8 3/4 1 (M) 2 MPT 2 5/8 2 MPT MAKE-UP DRAIN 41/4 -34 137 3/4 T-10" 13 1/2 18'-2 5/8" FACE 2 FACE 1 SHIPPING 14800 + OPERATING 23010 HEAVIEST SECTION 14800 h NO.OF SHIPPING SECTIONS 1 WEIGHT Ibs. WEIGHT lbs. WEIGHT IS. CAMPUS ADVANTAGE September 16,2015 Catherine De Almeida 123 S. Cayuga Street,Suite 201 2398 East Camelback Road Ithaca,NY Re: 301 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd. --State Street Triangle Project:FEAF Part 3 Responses Catherine: Below are Campus Advantage to the inquiries from the City of Ithaca on our FEAF part 3 submission on the 301 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd.Project. Re2ardin the IMPACT ON GROWTH&CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD: • Expected resident breakdown—student/non-student—and institution attending. How will the building be leased—by bedroom of apartments? The applicant has provided the following information about resident breakdown: Campus Advantage Response is: The new unit mix is as follows: Unit Types #of Units #ofBedsper #ofBeds Unit Efficiency 50 1 50 1 Bed/1 Bath 30 1 30 2 Bed/1 Bath 40 2 80 2 Bed/2 Bath 20 2 40 3 Bed/2 Bath 6 3 18 4 Bed/4 Bath-Odds 29 4 116 4 Bed/4 Bath-Even 37 4 148 5 Bed/4 Bath 20 5 100 Total 232 2.51 582 The residential make-up of Project is estimated to be: • 77.8%student(431),22.2%non-student(123). • 78.4%of the students undergrad(338),21.6%estimated to be graduate(93) • 64%from Cornell(276),32%from IC(138),4%from TC3 (17) See attached worksheet titled:State Street Triangle Project:Estimated Resident Breakdown. All units will be rented"by the bedroom". Given efficiencies and one bedroom units only have one bedroom, only one lease will need to be executed. On all other unit types, a potential resident will be able to execute multiple leases for multiple bedrooms. Unfortunately, student housing Property Management software does not allow a mix of leasing types. Therefore, if a conventional renter(non-student)would like to rent a two bedroom unit, then that individual will be able to do so by signing a lease for each bedroom.This does occur with some regularity across our 110 Wild Basin Rd. • Suite 365• Austin,TX 78746 v: 512.472.6222•f:512.472.0982•www.CampusAdv.com 40+ property portfolio. A sampling of over 16,000 residents June of 2015 showed 14.3% of residents we 25 & older,with 7.6%of our residents being 28 or older. Due to Fair Housing,we do not require tenants to state whether they are a student or not,as our apartments are open to rent to anyone. Regarding the IMPACT ON GROWTH&CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD: • Market analysis performed for project Campus Advantage Response is: The Subject Development is located at 301 East State Street in Ithaca, NY, approximately 0.6 miles to Cornell University and 0.9 miles to Ithaca College.It sits at the gateway of the new downtown pedestrian corridor,known as Ithaca Commons. This area is a four-block pedestrian area populated with retail, restaurants, and nightlife that is frequented by Ithaca residents, as well as Cornell and IC students. The 0.76-acre site is proposed to be an 11-story building with the first floor containing retail, as well as the leasing office and common area amenities. Possible amenities include a 24-hour fitness center, a flex fitness space, media/game lounge, study rooms and an internet cafe. The city of Ithaca is in central New York and is the county seat of Tompkins County, as well as the largest community in the Ithaca-Tompkins County metropolitan area. This contains the municipalities of the Town of Ithaca, the village of Cayuga Heights, and other towns and villages in Tompkins County). The city of Ithaca is located on the southern shore of Cayuga Lake, in Central New York. Ithaca is home to three institutions of higher learning - Cornell University, Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3). In 2013, the city's estimated population was 30,515,and the metropolitan area had a population of 103,617. Of the three institutions of higher learning, two are Tier 1 investable markets and given their proximity to the Subject Site, it can be assumed that this development will attract students from both. The site is within one mile of both campuses and can be accessed via TCAT shuttle routes.Routes 10& 11 provide express access to both Cornell and Ithaca College, respectively, every 10 minutes from lam to 7pm, seven days a week. Additionally, late night routes also provide coverage from 8:00 to 2:30 am from downtown Ithaca to Cornell Monday through Saturday. Additionally,the site's adjacency to downtown Ithaca provides residents with superb access to the entirety of Ithaca and Tompkins county given downtown Ithaca is the hub in the TCAT's Hub and Spoke accessibility model. Cornell students are able to accesses TCAT via purchasing an OmniRide pass for$200 per year. Ithaca College students are also offered discounted passes for$265 for the year. In fall 2014, Cornell saw its highest enrollment yet, reaching 21,850, which is a 4.4% growth over the past five years, an increase of 911 students. Undergraduates at Cornell account for 66% of the total population, approximately 14,453 students,and graduates number 7,397. All students are attending this institution on a full-time basis. Out-of-state students make up 73% of the total population. Cornell currently houses approximately 7,463 students,which accounts for approximately 51.6% of the undergraduate students and 34.2% of the total population. There is no on-campus housing requirement. Ithaca College enrolls 6,587 students,of which 6,124 are undergraduates. 97%of students are attending IC full-time and 56% come from out of state. IC requires housing through junior year and houses approximately 4,395 students in 27 traditional residence halls and two apartment complexes. This accounts for 71.8% of the undergraduate population and 66.7%of the total enrollment. The Mayor of Ithaca, Svante Myrick, and Tompkins Legislator, Martha Robertson, recently submitted an article to The Ithaca Voice stating Ithaca's housing crisis. They state the shortage of rental and for-sale housing is getting worse every year. The lack of housing causes people to live further out in the suburbs, causing traffic congestion, damage to the infrastructure, environmental issues, as well as putting a strain on public transit. The county's 2006 assessment reported that Ithaca would need at least 2,127 new rental units by 2014 to meet the demand. During the 2006-2014 timeframe,only 657 new units have been completed in the city of Ithaca,leaving a 1,470 unit shortage of Page 2 rental units.What was not accounted for in the 2006 Demand Study,was the 2,400 new undergraduate and graduate students added at Cornell with zero (0) new beds added on-campus. Further compounding the on-going housing shortage will be the estimated 1,300 students projected at Cornell over the next 5 years along with the closing of Maplewood Apartments in the summer of 2016, leaving 480 graduate students without housing. This is a net increase of unmet demand of 1,780 students. See attached articles: The case for more housing in Tompkins CouM, Cornell plans closure of Maplewood Park Apartments, Opinion: Ithaca's housing crisis, economic justice and the path forward. According to Nels Bohn, of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Ithaca's vacancy rate in 2014 was 1% with rental rates increase of 13% from 2013 to 2014. In April 2014, the New York Times named Ithaca America's I Ith least affordable housing market with residents spending on average 38.6%of their income on housing. This means Ithaca is more expensive than Napa, CA, Honolulu, Hi and Boulder, CO. General macroeconomics theory will illustrate that a market whose supply and demand is so stretched, that new supply is needed in order to provide slack in the economy. See attached articles: Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?and In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out ofReach of Middle Class. The off-campus market can be mostly characterized by a collection of smaller apartment communities that offer very few amenities, are not professionally managed and do not resemble traditional purpose-built student product. The overall occupancy for the Ithaca market is strong at 99%,with many of the properties beginning lease up for the following year on October 1st due to strong housing demand. The Subject Development will bring a professional management team and residence life program unlike what is currently present in Ithaca. Additionally, it will offer residents a variety of amenities and apartment finishes that will be superior to the rest of the market. See attached article:In Housing Rush, Cornellians Weather Collegetown Line for Hours. The proposed project presents the Ithaca with the ability to close the 1,470 unit rental housing unit shortage by 232 units, nearly an entire third of the units the market was able to provide over an eight year period. This 15.7% reduction in the shortfall should provide added relief to a severely strained rental housing market. Though some might think the Project to be too large in scale, when the demand generators from the types of units that are being delivered are examined,the parts are easily digestible: 338 Undergraduate students represent 3.3% of the off-campus undergraduate student demand (Ithaca College and Cornell only) 93 Graduate students represent 1.4% of the off-campus graduate student demand (Ithaca College and Cornell only) 123 Conventional renters (93 units) represent a mere 0.4% of the Ithaca population and marginally more than the 82 housing units delivered on average from 2006-2014. Rezardinu the IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION: Potential transportation mitigations: • Shuttle Service • Incorporating parking into the project • Green Street public sidewalk—rebuild and add 5'treelawn and street trees • Design and installation of intersection improvements Campus Advantage Response is: Campus Advantage deliberated the use of a private shuttle service to and from Cornell, Ithaca and TC3. Upon careful examination of the extensive public transportation system and the subsidized bus passes to students,running a private shuttle would provide minimal positive impact to transportation convenience while at the same time adding to traffic to the site and a need for lanes to pick up passengers. An important component to traffic management is relying on the in-place transportation infrastructure and discouraging auto ownership by not providing on-site parking, in combination with providing on-site car sharing and bicycle sharing. Campus Advantage is in dialogue with Ithaca Car Share to provide at least one(1) car on-site, as well as obtained a proposal from Zagster for 10 bike Page 3 share bicycles. As stated by TCAT, this site is the best-located site in Ithaca in relation to public transportation, especially to Cornell and Ithaca College,whose routes have ample capacity to serve to project. See attached letter from TCAT. Related to on-site parking, as illustrated in the 2012 Parking Study performed by Upstate Research Group,we believe the best deterrent of auto ownership is not providing on-site parking. According to this study of more than 330 individuals, auto ownership rates among individuals whose housing accommodation did not provide on-site parking was half of that of individuals whose housing accommodations provided on-site parking, 16.7% versus 34%. See attached Collegetown Parking Study. We believe the parking demand of 191 cars can be met in a mutually beneficial relationship the Cayuga Garage, providing the garage much needed income to meet its debt service obligations currently unmet by approximately$960,000 per year. See attached worksheet titled State Street Triangle project—Projected Parking Demand. We trust that our responses to your inquiries are acceptable. Please let us know if more information is required. Regards, By: Michael C. Orsak Senior Vice President Campus Advantage Page 4 State Street Triangle Project Estimated Resident Breakdown Estimated Residential Make-up Unit Types #of Units #of Beds per #of Beds Occ Perc Tenants %Students #Students % # Unit Professionals Professionals Efficiency 50 1 50 95% 48 25% 12 75% 36 1 Bed/1 Bath 30 1 30 95% 29 25% 7 75% 22 2 Bed/1 Bath 40 2 80 95% 76 50% 38 50% 38 2 Bed/2 Bath 20 2 40 95% 38 50% 19 50% 19 3 Bed/2 Bath 6 3 18 95% 17 50% 9 50% 8 4 Bed/4 Bath-Odds 29 4 116 95% 110 100% 110 0% 0 4 Bed/4 Bath-Even 37 4 148 95% 141 100% 141 0% 0 5 Bed/4 Bath 20 5 100 95% 95 100% 95 0% 0 Total 232 2.51 582 95% 554 77.8% 431 22.2% 123 Estimated Classification Make-Up of Student Residents Unit Types #Students %UG #UG %Grad #Grad Efficiency 12 5.0% 1 95.0% 11 1 Bed/1 Bath 7 10.0% 1 90.0% 6 2 Bed/1 Bath 38 25.0% 10 75.0% 28 2 Bed/2 Bath 19 25.0% 5 75.0% 14 3 Bed/2 Bath 9 50.0% 5 50.0% 4 4 Bed/4 Bath-Odds 110 90.0% 99 10.0% 11 4 Bed/4 Bath-Even 141 90.0% 127 10.0% 14 5 Bed/4 Bath 95 95.0% 90 5.0% 5 Total 431 78.4% 338 21.6% 93 Estimated Source of Student Residents Undergraduate Graduate Total College % # % # % # Cornell 65.0% 220 60.0% 56 64.0% 276 Ithaca College 30.0% 101 40.0% 37 32.0% 138 TC3 5.0% 17 0.0% 0 3.9% 17 Total 100.0% 338 1 100.0% 93 100.0% 431 9/16/2015 The case for more housing in Tompkins County The case for more housing in Tompkins County AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS, STORIES JULY 8, 2015 BY BRIAN CRANDALL ITHACA, N.Y. Last week, Ithaca Mayor Svante Myrick and county Legislator Martha Robertson issued an opinion piece on the need for more housing, and especially affordable housing, in the city and county. There were two, fairly simple reactions to the article - readers believed it and agreed there was a housing issue, or they thought it was bunch of lies. Having some data-driven writers on staff at the Ithaca Voice, we decided to delve a little deeper into the numbers behind Myrick and Robertson's claims. Let's start with the 2006 housing study that was cited in the article. According to that study, performed by Vermont-based Economic & Policy Resources Inc. (EPR), 2,127 rental units and 1,767 owner-occupied units would be needed by the end of 2014, for a total of 3,894. These numbers were determined using the 2005 housing deficit (871 units), economic trends and population/demographic trends. Some readers may remember the quote of "4,000 units of housing" cited in news pieces back in the mid- 2000s, and this is where it comes from. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 1/6 9/16/2015 The case for more housing in Tompkins County New Housing Permits in Tompkins unV, 2006- 2014 Single-Family Humes(z.. Communities. Multi-Family Housing(all communities) Single-Family Homes(Ithaca 15 f city only) Multi-Family Housing(Ithaca city only) ' 0 200 400 600 800 1,�000 Copyright notice Create Infograpahirs Using data from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's State Of the Cities Systems (SOCDS) Database, new housing permits were pulled for the same time period as the study's projection, 2006 to 2014. From 2006 to 2014, Tompkins County added 1,124 single-family homes and 910 multi-family housing units (apartments and maybe a few co-ops or condos), for a total of 2,034 housing units. In what is a surprise to no one, the majority of multi-family housing was built in the city of Ithaca, and the majority of single-family homes were built in surrounding towns. The county had 40,069 housing units in 2006, so in that nine-year span there was about 5.1% growth in housing units, to 42,103. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3Cdiv%20d ass%3D%22s_header_w raper%22%20styl e%3D%22box-s i zing%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 2/6 9/16/2015 The case for more housing in Tompkins County The EPR study stated that 3,894 housing units would be required. With 2,034 units actually built, that means only 52% of the housing needs identified by the study were met. Breaking it down further, homeowners, occupying mostly single-family properties, fared a little better - with 1,124 built of the 1,767, that meant 63.6% of the homes that were needed based on 2006-2014 projection were built. However, for rental units, which are mostly multi-family housing, it was only 910 of the 2,127 needed - 42.8%. Not even half. This wouldn't be a problem if the economy slowed down or population growth level off, but neither of those occurred. Even with the recession a few years ago, job totals have increased quite a bit, with over 6,000 jobs have been added to the county since 2006. The population has also increased - Tompkins County had 99,997 residents in 2006, and in 2014 it was estimated to be 104,691. Rather oddly, the county added 3,049 housing units from 1997-2005, the previous nine-year period, but only 3,482 residents. Population growth has climbed even as new housing permits have dropped. Perhaps most importantly, the 2006 EPR study never accounted for changes in student population. It assumed net zero change for the purpose of the study, which focused on permanent residents. Unfortunately for the housing situation, there's been a huge growth in student population. Cornell added 2,040 students from 2006 to 2014. Ithaca Collegeadded a more manageable 178 students. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average rental unit in Tompkins County houses 2.14 people. The county's staring down 1,036 units it didn't plan for, and as noted in the opinion article, Cornell plans on increasing its enrollment further. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 3/6 9/16/2015 The case for more housing in Tompkins County For the record, IC has added student housing in the period from 2006 to 2014 - anaddition to the Circle Apartments south of campus, which opened in 2012 and increased campus housing capacity by 138 beds. While South Hill students are driving up housing demand, the overall impact is minor. In contrast, when Cornell rebuilt its West Campus Housing during the 2006-2014 time period, there was no net increase in the total number of beds. The Big Red has had no gain in student housing since new dorms opened on North Campus in 2001. With the impending closure of the 480-bed Maplewood Park student housing complex, the situation may get worse. No one can force Cornell to build new housing, but their burgeoning student population does add a substantial strain to the market. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 4/6 9/16/2015 The case for more housing in Tompkins County Housing Mead in Tompkins County f Units) 2,800 2,400 2,()00 1,600 1,200 800 400 C3 C VI C) Cop,,-right notice Create infngmaphics F F inFor ram Given the numbers above, Tompkins County fell 1,860 units short of its 2014 housing goal; add in the unexpected influx of college students, and the number rises to 2,832. It wasn't good to have some affordability problems when the county was 871 units short of a balanced market in 2005; at the 2014 deficit of 2,832 units, the impacts become much data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 5/6 9/16/2015 The case for more housing in Tompkins County more severe, which is why housing affordability has become such a big issue. Myrick and Robertson's column might be an opinion, but the statistics give their opinion a lot of weight. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 6/6 9/16/2015 Cornell plans closure of Maplewood Park Apartments Cornell plans closure of Maplewood Park Apartments NEWS, STORIES MAY 27, 2015 BY BRIAN CRANDALL Ithaca, N.Y. Grad students living in Ithaca will have one fewer option come Fall 2016: The Maplewood Park Apartments, a complex owned by Cornell University, will shut down after the 2015-2016 academic year. SPONSORED Downtown Ithaca Bingo Shop, Dine, & Play To Win According to a press release from the university, KyuJung Whang, the university's vice president for Infrastructure, Properties and Planning, stated that "While Maplewood has data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 1/3 9/16/2015 Cornell plans closure of Maplewood Park Apartments served our community for more than 25 years, we have been aware that maintaining the complex was not sustainable, as the structures have just about reached the end of their useful life." Maplewood Park is a 394-unit, 480-bedroom facility off of Maple Avenue in the town of Ithaca. The complex was built in 1988/1989, replacing the "Vetsburg" home development that Cornell laid out after World War II to house the families of soldiers who came in on the G.I. Bill. The 122,000 square-foot complex not only includes apartments for grad and professional students, but also the Maplewood Park Community Center. It should be noted that the closure of Maplewood Park has nothing to do with a lack of demand. Cornell's student population has increased by nearly 2500 students since data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 2/3 9/16/2015 Cornell plans closure of Maplewood Park Apartments 2005, most of those being graduate and professional students. So why would the university close the facility? Possibly because Cornell has been intending on redeveloping the property for almost a decade. "We are committed to both the students and the local community to create living spaces in areas beyond central campus and promote multiple strategies to add housing to the market," said Whang in the Cornell press release. "These include the development of both the East Hill Plaza area and the Maplewood site." The Voice has touched on the East Hill plans previously. As for Maplewood Park, the property was reviewed in the Cornell Master Plan, noting that "the redevelopment of Maplewood Park in the short term is anticipated". Guidelines from the plan call for demolition of the current complex as well as the Cornell-owned Ithaca East (formerly Maple Hill) apartments next door, and replacing the properties with hundreds of university-owned rental units. However, there are no clear plans for the site development at this time; only that it is likely to occur. In the short term, the closure of 394 units tightens an already-tight Ithaca housing market. something that Cornell is cognizant of. In the longer term, residents of Belle Sherman and East Hill in general can expect a lot of Cornell-funded construction heading their way in the next couple of years. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 3/3 9/16/2015 Opinion:Ithaca not building nearly fast enough to meet demand Opinion : Ithaca' s housing crisis, economic justice and the path forward NEWS, OPINION JULY 1, 2015 BY JEFF STEIN Editor's Note: The following letter was written by Tompkins Legislator Martha Robertson and Mayor Svante Myrick. To submit a guest column, contact me anytime at jstein@ithacavoice.com. SPONSORED TCAT Bus To Nature: Route 22 data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 1/5 9/16/2015 Opinion:Ithaca not building nearly fast enough to meet demand We have a housing crisis in our community. It affects every one of us, not just people trying to move here for work, school, or retirement. This crisis a dire shortage of rental and for-sale housing at all price points — is getting worse every year. This crisis drives costs up for everyone. It pushes our assessments up, and therefore our taxes. People are forced to live far from their jobs, creating costly congestion and damage to our infrastructure. Public transit is over-stretched to serve the 15,000 in- commuters daily, as well as those within the county who live outside TCAT's range. Anyone concerned about economic justice should be extremely upset about this crisis. People are really hurting. Unfortunately, the people most hurt don't have the time to lobby for more housing; they're busy working just to pay the bills — often more than one job — and commuting. They're invisible. In particular, low-to-moderate income renters face a desperate and growing affordability gap. HUD defines housing as "affordable" if a household spends no more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs. Unfortunately, data show that almost a third of all non-student renters in Tompkins County pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. They manage by scrimping everywhere else: health care, clothing, even food. Demand on our food pantries keeps growing, as families struggle to keep their housing at the expense of life's other necessities. Unstable, unsafe, unaffordable housing adds to data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 2/5 9/16/2015 Opinion:Ithaca not building nearly fast enough to meet demand mental health and substance abuse challenges, hurts children's school performance, and keeps renters from saving to become homeowners. Concerned about environmental sustainability? You should be very disturbed by this crisis. Study after study shows that denser living has a lower carbon footprint than sprawl. If more housing is not built in the already-developed parts of our county, it will be built elsewhere —increasingly along our rural roads, swallowing up productive farmland and cherished green spaces, and forcing people to drive more. Sprawl increases other public costs as well, for schools, roads, emergency services, and more. But people ask: "There's been so much construction lately! Don't we have enough housing in the works?" No. The county's 2006 needs assessment projected that countywide, we'd need at least 2,127 new rental units by 2014 to meet the documented demand. We have built nowhere near that number. In fact, all the new construction is not keeping up with existing demand. Between 2005 and 2014, Cornell University added 2,400 new graduate students and undergrads. During almost that same period 2006 to 2014 there have only been 657 new units completed in the City of Ithaca. The gap is widening. But that's not all. Cornell's plans are to grow even faster in the next five years, adding 1,300 undergrad and graduate students. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 3/5 9/16/2015 Opinion:Ithaca not building nearly fast enough to meet demand THE Ithaca Voice Story Datab =ocr ONE PLACE TO LEARN THE KEY ISSUES PACING OUR COMMUNFY Learn more about Ithaca's affordable housing crisis by clicldng on the box above. This is not to criticize Cornell. Their policy is that off-campus housing pays taxes and supports the community directly, while on-campus dorms are exempt from property taxes. Even if Cornell were to decide tomorrow to build new on-campus housing, that would take years. It takes more than three years from start to finish for new housing projects. For our neighbors who are hurting, for the sake of the environment, we have no time to lose. Housing demand is so strong because ours is a special community, including our culture that values social equity and environmental sustainability. We must make the most of this enviable position, welcoming new people and becoming an even more inclusive community, and preserving the community we cherish. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 4/5 9/16/2015 Opinion:Ithaca not building nearly fast enough to meet demand Martha Robertson is a Tompkins County legislator and Housing Fund chairwoman. — Svante Myrick is mayor of the City of Ithaca. data:text/htm I;charset=utf-8,%3C di v%20cl ass%3D%22s_header_wraper%22%20style%3D%22box-sizi ng%3A%20border-box%3B%20m argi n-top%3A%2028... 5/5 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News Welcome! Login I Signup Feel great, lo-ok-gre' at j 760 ♦ a Search this site... Gear — ! HOME NEWS SPORTS LIVING A&E REAL ESTATE SPECIAL SECTIONS CLASSIFIEDS Home News Events Calendar Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities ? September 2015 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Story Comments(14) Image(2) Print Font Size: 1 2 3 4 5 Recommend 1.3k Tweet 26 G+1 1 52 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Previous Next Posted:Wednesday,April 23,2014 12:00 am 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 � By Michael Nocella 1 14 comments 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 When thinking of cities likely to have the least affordable rental housing,New York City is a good bet.It only makes 27 28 29 30 sense thatthe financial capital of the United States would be an expensive place to live.So when the New York Times recently published a list of the top 20 cities where rents are highest relative to median gross income,itwas a bit of a surprise to find Ithaca ranked 11t',just one spot below the Big Apple. Submit Your News! The list,derived from an analysis conducted by the real We're always interested in hearing estate website Zillow,found 90 cities where the median - ' rent—not including utilities—was more than 30 percent of about news in our community. Let us " - the median gross income.Conventional wisdom suggests know what's going on! an individual's rent should be somewhere around 30 percent of his or her income.Zillow found Ithacans,on average,spend 38.6 percent. 1. d1ti' According to the U.S.Department of Housing&Urban Development(HUD),the average two-bedroom apartment in Ithaca—including utilities—costs$1,130 per month.To afford such an apartment without spending CabarETC more than the traditional 30 percent of one's income on G �-- rent,the household would need to earn$49,000 a year. I The median household income in the City of Ithaca is $29,230 and two-thirds of the city's households earn less women of. than$50,000 a year,according to the 2008-2012 estimate from the American Community Survey(of the i w dstock photo:Justin Zoll U.S.Census Bureau). SeptM26alpm For Rent "The cost of housing is increasing at a faster rate than the increase in median household income,'said Nels Bohn, TIGKETS ON SALE NOW Director of Community Development,Ithaca Urban ''I Renewal Agency(IURA)."Between 2013 and 2014 the cost of rental housing in Ithaca increased 13 percent,"he said,"yet household incomes are largely stagnant.We have a growing housing affordability problem in Ithaca" Why is rent so expensive in Ithaca? Several cities found on the New York Times'least affordable rents list were to be expected.Los Angeles(topping the list at47 percent),Miami(43.2 percent),San Diego(41.4 percent)and San Francisco(40.7 percent)are sought after destinations for employment.It's easy to fathom why living in those cities year round would be costly. It is less apparent why the rental housing market in Ithaca is so competitive.Even when compared to other hftp://www.ithaca.com/news/why-is-ithaca-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/articl e_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 1/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News college towns in the Northeast,Ithaca is expensive.According to AApartmentratinos.com,the average two- bedroom apartment—$1,165 in Ithaca—is cheaper in Burlington,VT($999),Charlottesville,VA($1,139), Amherst,MA($1,074),and New Brunswick,NJ($1,066).All of the aforementioned college towns have median X]Iscr TrListed IT for the household incomes greater than Ithaca,with Burlington($33,070)the only one not north of$40,000. Modern Business World The simplest explanation for why Ithaca's rental housing market is skewed is supply and demand. ■ "The New York Times article thatjust came out that looked at all of these market areas had,to me,really surprising results,"said Paul Mazzarella,Executive Director of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services(INNS)."I knew Ithaca was expensive.I've also known New York City was very expensive.One of things that makes rentals expensive in Ithaca is that the supply of rental units is really limited" Thanks to a constant stream of renters supplied by Ithaca College and Cornell University students,landlords in Ithaca find themselves with very few vacancies.According to Bohn of IURA,the current rental market in Ithaca has a vacancy rate of less than 1 percent.A desirable vacancy rate in a real estate market is typically 5 percent. In addition to increasing rent,a housing market that prioritizes a student population leaves the rest of Ithaca's rental market in the dark. Most Popular Most Commented "It is important to note that increasing the supply of housing aimed at only one price range or targeted to a single age niche will not result in the benefits of increased competition for the entire market,"Bohn said. Food Trucks and Carts "For instance,increasing the amount of housing near campuses that are targeted for college students has Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US minimal impact on the rents for households seeking housing elsewhere throughoutthe community.Likewise, increasing the supply of high-end housing is not expected to trickle down to offer more choice for lower-income Cities? households.We need an across-the-board increase in the rental housing supply as well as other types of housing,such as condominiums,"he added. Dryden Burglary Suspects Nabbed Not only is the presence of Ithaca College and Cornell University dictating the city's housing trends,the Memorial Watchfi re to be Lit at Myers Point institutions also create jobs.This brings new faces to Ithaca looking for a place to live,and more times than not, to rent.While a thriving job market is a good thing,Ithaca Mayor Svante Myrick said it factors into why affordable apartments are so hard to find. Ithaca Commons Cameras Watching You "I think it's because there's a lot ofjobs here,and there's not a lot of apartments here,"Myrick said."It's that dynamic.We have not grown the housing market as fast as the job market.So that while we're adding more jobs, the people coming in to take the jobs are now competing with the people that were already here." �, ur bank Even Myrick,with a yearly salary of$50,000,flirts with paying more than 30 percent of his gross income on rent. �Take yo ur c)your la Living with a roommate in a two-bedroom apartment on Linden Avenue with a monthly rent of$750 per person, cal Myrick estimates spending close to$12,000 a year on rent and utilities.He said,after taxes,he clears a little coffee shop more than$35,000 in income.That puts him right around spending a third of his income on rent,and that's with a paycheck well above the city's median income.Myrick noted that the job he had before being mayor paid him hour locair mobile,remarkab)e $26,000 a year,and that those days included missed meals and"a lot of Ramen" La7yyi,munq bank. "I can't complain about my paycheck at all,"he said."I'm a single guy with no overhead,that's pretty good.But the rent is killer." l Trust CompanyMyrick said the first step to creating a more affordable housing market is keeping up with the population growth; the second step is keeping up with the local job growth.However,even if those two conditions are met,a new tocadyfocused.A workf ofpassibiia+es. trend of national household size shrinking is creating a need for more households,Myrick said. "Fifty years ago,someone my age would be married and have three kids;"he said."Four people would live in one house.Now,whomever it is I'm going to marry is out in an apartment on her own.And I'm in an apartment. Bank So it's double the number of apartments you would need before." Ban You Don't Pay for What You Get k from anywhere. Anyone who was surprised to find Ithaca among the least affordable places to live probably doesn't rent in Ithaca.Whether you're the mayor,a student,orjust a longtime resident,it is a known concern. - Cornell graduate student Amanda Costello,who lives in a four-bedroom house on South Quarry Street,pays a monthly rent of$625 per person,which only includes water.Before that,she lived on Dryden Road. El mira Savings Barak "So far this is the cheapest place I have lived in Collegetown,"she said."Rent increases between$25 and$50 n,F'mac?s eAnti per person every year no matter who your landlord is.Collegetown—its housing at least—is basically a glorified slum.I would never pay what I do if I didn't need to be within walking distance of campus.The[building at the] intersection of Dryden Road and College Ave.now sits half empty because of the outrageously high rents.Who that is working out well for,I can't say.It is horrifically overpriced.The landlords must pay off the inspectors to get these houses passed" Cornell graduate student Owen Rickey—who like Costello also attended Cornell as an undergraduate—echoed Costello's frustration.He pays a monthly rent of$850 for his share of a two-bedroom apartment on Oak Ave. Angered by the year-to-year increases in his rent,he claimed that eight major landlords cornered the market in Collegetown. "They work together to keep prices high on their properties despite each one being a piece of crap,"he said. http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-is-ithaca-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/articl e_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 2/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News "Each year a house or two is closed for the removal of asbestos from the walls and ceilings.Houses sag to the point of almost collapsing.It is insane.These are$200-300 per person a month places that are going for$700- 900,and all the way up to$1200 or more.All because they are close to Cornell University." Landlords Association of Tompkins County President Herb Dwyer said there is no such rent collaboration between the eight major landlords of Collegetown,or any landlords in Ithaca for that matter.He added that the landlords association holds roundtable meetings to make sure"those types of meetings don't happen." Cuba ' "I've never heard of that,"he said."It would only be a monopoly if there it was just one guy.If they really are ! f meeting to discuss rents,that's price fixing and that's illegal.That's straight out of a Hollywood movie.I can't imagine that's the case.Increases in rents are purely market driven" Emu Overpaying for mediocre living arrangements is not exclusive to Collegetown.Myrick estimated that his$750 rent per person apartment looks and feels like"what$400 per person should get you;'adding,"if$750 a month gets r . _ you this,then what do you get for$400?It brutal:' Ithaca Times staff photographer Justin Zoll has rented in Ithaca for seven years.He said he pays$465(heat included)for his half of a two-bedroom apartment in Fall Creek.Even though this would qualify as cheaper than What DO You Think? the average,Zoll said it still takes its toll. Do you buy used goods? "I've always paid about this much,so I can't comment as to whether or not it's reasonable,"Zoll said."I can say that as someone who has worked a number of differentjobs in Ithaca,it does take a considerably large portion of 0 Yes No my income." Vote View Results Raising rents to"tread water" With the cost of rental housing in Ithaca up 13 percent in the last year(according to the IURA),it might seem like landlords are taking advantage of a situation where there is more demand than supply.However,owningCo-Invest property in Ithaca is an expensive endeavor in its own right. Houston Apartment "It's very expensive to own property in the city of Ithaca,"said Ithaca landlord Monica Moll."Property taxes are 22 Slable, cents of every dollar.Utilities and water is very expensive.I have a high turnover rate,so that's very expensive. Every year,I turn over 75 percent of my property.So that costs money.So I can see why rents are so much above the median income in Ithaca because there are so many factors in keeping up property that is very expensive.It's ponsox WAM,25 year histdry really hard.I can't raise rents fast enough atthis point to cover the increase in property taxes." targeted rGO rnIn Investment(No fees) Warren Real Estate broker Mark Mecenas been in the real estate industry in Ithaca for nearly 30 years.He is also a landlord and a developer.No matter what hat he's wearing,he said the cost of doing business in Ithaca—or anywhere in New York State—is high.He pointed to the area's high taxes and long heating season as to why owning and renting property is more expensive in Ithaca,than say,Virginia or Georgia. +, CfoWdStree t "My whole reason for investing in real estate is to be a hedge for inflation,"he said."Because every day I'm y losing buying power through inflation.I'm not trying to raise rents.For the most part,I'm treading water.I'm not CA getting ahead.I'm not making any real gain.I'm just saying'Ok,what are my expenses this year?Oh,I have to 1@ 1K JE ri increase rent.'It's a vicious cycle:' PTL7� X ER As taxes rise,so will rent. T TO YOUR : i EVERY THURSDAY "On the cost side,homeowners and renters struggle with high property taxes due to the high percentage of tax- SIGN UP TODAY! IT'S FREE. exempt property in the city,which is over 60 percent;"Bohn said. "It is not unusual now for a homeowner to pay more in taxes than mortgage payments.One solution to alleviate this problem is to increase the tax base.A new market-rate condominium housing project downtown or student housing project in Collegetown may not lead directly to more affordable housing,but the property taxes they pay will reduce the tax rate for the rest of the community,including housing developers of moderate income rental housing,"he added. Asthma& Asthma&AIlelpy Allergy Ass... Can anything be done? Associates P.�. Ithaca,NY 14850 „r.,�rxz:2-•3£, .�c�rr„ 'a [Map] One solution to stabilizing the rental housing market in Ithaca would be to increase the supply.However,as 607-257-6563 Bohn noted,simply adding housing options is not guaranteed to have any impact.A new apartment complex near Collegetown isn't likely to lower the cost of living in downtown.Options must be added across the board. 1 2 3 4 5 Unfortunately,developing new housing is a huge challenge anywhere,let alone Ithaca. 6 7 8 9 "We run into such a firestorm of opposition at every turn any time we have affordable housing projects proposed;" 10 11 12 13 Myrick said."People wonder why it's so hard to build affordable housing in the city.The people who like it generally don't show up.I mean,they just don't show up at city council meetings.You'll never have 100 people 14 show up(to support an affordable housing project)."He also pointed out that a lot of people who would be in favor of the project don't actually live in the city yet,making it even less likely that they would attend a council meeting. Find Local Businesses Search GO Landlords Association of Tompkins County President Herb Dwyer said adding new housing options in Ithaca is a challenge because there are few places left to build. Popular Searches I Browse By Category "it all comes down to supply and demand,"he said."It's not like there's giant lots of land that aren't being http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-is-ithaca-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/articl e_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 3/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News touched.But we need to be careful and find an intelligent approach to building density.The notion of increased density...people want more density but they don't want it in their backyards,so its tough:' One affordable housing project that did make it through city council meetings is INHIS's Breckingridge Place,the 50-unit apartment building in the heart of downtown Ithaca that opened in January.Its rents range from about $616-$1,100 a month,plus electricity.These apartments are only available to families and individuals that meet the income criteria for the project.Income eligibility depends on the size of the family.Single person incomes up to about$48,000,two-person incomes up to about$55,000,and three-person incomes up to about$62,000 were eligible for the lottery. Breckingridge Place filled up in less than six weeks,Mazzarella said. "The economic theory is if you increase the supply,that's going to make rents go down,'Mazzarella said."That's not going to happen here.But I do think we need more rental units.Development of more rental units could slow down the rate of increase in rent prices.We're always looking at different sites and the possibility of building new housing,and we've got a couple places in mind.But it literally takes years to develop a project and get it under construction." As for rents going down in Ithaca anytime soon,don't hold your breath. "You look at the Ithaca City School District,and they're about to pass a budget that will increase property tax by more than 8 percent;"Dwyer said."So I can already tell you rents will be more expensive again next year."- More about Rental Property •ARTICLE:A Quiet Home in Denby More about Collegetown •ARTICLE:City Says No to Cornell Students'Billboard Trash Bin Pitch •ARTICLE:Collegetown Form Based Zoning District •ARTICLE:New Collegetown Zoning Nixes Transition Zones •ARTICLE:New draft of Collegetown area form-based districts Recommend 1.3k r Tweetj{26 GO 1<L1 52 Discuss Print Posted in News,Ithaca on Wednesday,April 23,2014 12:00 am.1 Tags: Rental Property, Collegetown Similar Stories Most Read • Ithaca Falls Park On Pace For Completion Food Trucks and Carts • Labored Breath Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US • New Design Breaks Up Triangle Volume Cities? • Tompkins County Legislator Kathy Luz Herrera Dryden Burglary Suspects Nabbed Resigns Memorial Watchfire to be Lit at Myers Point • Dunkin'Donuts On Commons A No Go Ithaca Commons Cameras Watching You Welcome to the discussion. Screen Name or Email F Password LForgot? Login Need an account?Create one now. 14 comments: http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-i s-i thaca-one-of-the-I east-affordable-us-cities/article_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 4/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News bobohut posted at 11:12 am on Tue,Apr 29,2014. @taxestoomuch property taxes are"38 cents of every dollar"?What dollar?I pay Posts:3 about 20%. Log In to report.I Link bobohut posted at 11:10 am on Tue,Apr 29,2014. Well first,I'm pretty sure that the 30%of income spent on housing figure refers to Posts:3 GROSS income,so the bit aboutthe mayor spending close to 30%is misleading. Apartments in collegetown ARE trashy.Its the reality.I looked at some apartments there once,and I asked some landlords how they could justify renting places in such poor condition.The answer was always the same-the college students will rent them. Finally,Ithaca is a really desirable place to live...what are the factors that limit population growth here?Maybe high rent is an important control?If housing were cheaper,would there be an influx of people?Do we want our city to grow,grow,grow? Or can we seek some kind of equilibrium? Log In to report.I Link taxestoomuch posted at 11:45 am on Mon,Apr 28,2014, "Property taxes are 22 cents of every dollar."How did he get that number?I looked my Posts:1 record again.It is 38 cents of every dollar,include School,City&County taxes.Ge does not pay School tax for his age? Log In to report.I Link TBruce posted at 6:53 pm on Sun,Apr 27,2014. The article mentions,but does not emphasize,an unhealthily low vacancy rate.That Posts:1 would indicate that there is simply too little housing supply available for the demand. may be missing the point made by those who claim that increasing the supply for any particular group of renters would not lower the price,although after so many years of successful efforts to keep development outside the city limits that might well be true. Still,isn't a large part of the problem the fact that there is just not enough to go around? Log In to report.I Link laurarontwo posted at 12:31 am on Sun,Apr 27,2014. Just another cheap shot at landlords.They wonder why developers don't build more Posts:1 housing in Ithaca are you kidding me have you ever tried to do something in Ithaca it is close to impossible to do anything. Log In to report.I Link Managing_Editor posted at 6:17 pm on Sat,Apr 26,2014. You can draw concentric bands around the Cornell campus and rents will become Posts:35 gradually lower as you move further and further away in Tompkins County and then STAFF out of the county. Collegetown's housing is all over the place in quality.Anyone who walks around in the neighborhood can see that.The strange thing is that quality has little correspondence to prince.Everything is expensive if it is close to Cornell.(We shouldn't ignore Ithaca College altogether;the situation on South Hill is a smaller scale version of the same phenomenon.) Ithaca has only had one Socialist mayor.Myrick and Peterson are Democrats and Cohen is an independent. I have it from first-hand accounts of people now in their late 40s and 50s that Ithaca was a less expensive place to live in the 1980s.It was then possible to live on a http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-is-ithaca-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/articl e_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 5/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News service economy income.That is a tougher row to hoe now,even accounting for inflation(regardless of how you figure inflation). The re ..rinfn mnv he }he-lien inn by innl„rlinn Log In to report.I Link read more(about 6 more lines) TeIIMeWhy posted at 2:06 pm on Sat,Apr 26,2014. @Staff--looks like I need to seek out that past article.Many readers may have also Posts:3 missed it,so some reference to it would have been helpful. Someone should look into the details of the NYT/Zillow study--what geography did they use for Ithaca(Tompkins County?the City?).More importantly,what did they use for income?If they are using household income(without any correction/acknowledgement for the students),that will be watered down a lot by students who are making very little/no income and exacerbate the statistics to make Ithaca look worse than it really is. @TTerpening—I am not sure why you need to resort to name calling;it does nothing to promote your points(many of which are legitimate).This obviously is a sensitive subject for you;a more respectful approach will further your cause a lot more than name calling. Log In to report.I Link TTerpening posted at 10:26 am on Sat,Apr 26,2014. While your article asks why housing is so expensive in Tompkins County,it goes right Posts:7 to Collegetown and attacks landlords.It suggests Collegetown housing is trashy and over priced and it goes on to suggest ways to get the prices to come down.It also suggests that this high cost in Tompkins County is a new thing,suddenly coming onto us and now we have to take some actions to correct the trend.Sorry,but I think the article was just another cheap shot at landlords and was probably researched by its author while sitting in a bar with the Mayor. The last couple of times this sort of thing has come up,it was another socialist Mayor trying to establish a rental housing room tax on the backs of the landlords(and renters)by fabricating lies over security deposit abuse.Before that,it was an attempt to impose rent control.This smells of the same kind of political inventiveness as has been used before to foment discord and justify some new revenue generating legislation or provide fodder for political endearment. As for past times,you are right about Ithaca having factories,but you are wrong to suggest these very good paying jobs made Ithaca any more affordable.Tompkins Countv has always been at the top of the price ranqe for housinq compared to Log In to report.I Link read more(about 3 more lines) Managing_Editor posted at 5:10 pm on Fri,Apr 25,2014, TeIIMeWhy wishes that we had mentioned the effect of the presence of the university Posts:35 and the college in this article.We didn't because thatwas a primary focus of our April 2 STAFF cover story aboutthe recent hike in the assessed value of Collegetown rental properties. The other point,that the size of the student population versus the non-student population is large,is a very important one.It not approximated in very many other college towns. TTerpening asks a good question in his first email:What should we be doing to improve the economic conditions of our city/region so that more people can better afford to live here. The recent growth of the tech industry(with GiveGab—subject of our Feb.19 cover story—being a prominent example)and the creation of the Downtown Incubator are perhaps early signs of a revival of the commercial sector in this area.You don't have to be that old to remember when Ithaca was a factory town and thousands of people worked at Emerson Power Transmission,National Cash Register,and(a bit further http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-i s-ithaca-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/article_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 6/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News Log In to report.I Link read more(1 more line) TTerpening posted at 3:48 pm on Fri,Apr 25,2014. TeIIMeWhy,you write in the language of the progressive panderer.You probably don't Posts:7 even recognize it as pandering because it's so completely in sync with your society. Well,I've never learned that language because to do so one needs to be in agreement with the ideology of the progressives,socialists,and statists—pretty much the whole Left-leaning political establishment.I'm not in agreement with them and I can't speak that language.It's all hogwash and gobblygook.Sorry. Your few words drip with your agreement,however,because this"language"is all about framing the argument to suit your agenda.You say"sustainable for landlords:'Is there anyone else for whom sustainable rents are sustainable?Sure there are— people who can afford to pay the higher price.Yet,you imply that everyone should be able to afford the higher prices of Collegetown.Sorry,but I don't agree to that. You say productivity has gone up while wages have been flat.I think you believe that lie because your agenda requires agreement on it.Really?Productivity UP over the last 30 years?I bet you also believe that the unemployment rate is only 6.7%.1 suggest you take another closer look at the GDP.What is the GDP and how is it figured?You'll soon see that the king has no clothes.He's fanning the wind,my friend. Log In to report.I Link read more(about 5 more lines) Frankl ins Ghost posted at 8:51 am on Fri,Apr 25,2014. Using gauges like cost against"median income"is a skewed method of measuring Posts:40 affordability.A lot of Ithaca incomes are in the service industry because the transplanted liberals and NYs tax laws have driven good-paying manufacturing jobs out of the area.I went to a town meeting recently that focused largely on the fracking issue.One of the main anti-fracking speakers said Tompkins County can survive on tourism agriculture and education.Well,no,it can't,because everything we use on a daily basis has to be made somewhere,and those career fields tend to be lower paid jobs.So one reason the median income is so low is because we've driven the good jobs away.Secondly,we've imported a lot of lower income people into the area.We are building all of these low income complexes like West Village,West Hill Overlook, Linderman Creek,Poets Landing etc.Going all the way back to the building of West Village,there weren't enough local low income people to fill the place,so the owners were forced to advertise for low income renters as far away as NYC.Third,we have a city government that's historically been hostile to job growth,hostile to development, hostile to landlords of existing properties.You mix all of that in and you have a higher cost of operating a business,and the fees charged(rent)will reflect that reality. Log In to report.I Link TeIIMeWhy posted at 6:56 pm on Thu,Apr 24,2014. TTerpening,there are some very nice places in Collegetown,but more than not a lot of Posts:3 crappy looking places(and I can only guess that they are charging the market level rent). You bring up an interesting perspective that the problem may be less the high rents (and it is sustainable for landlords)and more an issue with people's compensation. Salaries are not going up because businesses are not directing the money toward salaries.Productivity over the past 30 years has increased while median wages have been flat.Companies are more profitable,squeezing more work from fewer people but they have not been sharing that profitability with their employees. There is a problem when rents are going up faster than salaries--that is not sustainable and something will eventually have to give.All bubbles will burst. Log In to report.I Link http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-i s-i thaca-one-of-the-I east-affordable-us-cities/article_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm I 7/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News TTerpening posted at 4:57 pm on Thu,Apr 24,2014. The framing of your arguments forthis article is designed to incite anger and Posts:7 resentment toward landlords who happen to be renting apartments in a healthy market.It rings of the class war mindset that seems so prevalent in the talk of pandering politicians.That is unfortunate because it doesn't help your cause. The proper and constructive framing of this issue is this:what needs to happen to improve the economic conditions of our community(country)to make our housing economy sustainable and put Mr.Mazzarella out of a job? That's a rhetorical statement and no offense was intended,but it's true that INHS was created to address something nobody likes—neighborhood and housing blight.So why is everyone bellyaching about so-called high rents?They're not high rents. They're SUSTAINABLE rents.And what Mr.Mazzarella and Mayor Myrick seem to want is to spread downtown's unsustainably low rent problem to the rest of the community.Really?You want to spread the blight to Collegetown,too? I can't speak for other landlords and don't intend to.I know that not everyone reinvests in their properties at the level I do.But maybe that's because they have mortgages. Log In to report.I Link read more(about21 more lines) TellMeWhy posted at 3:56 pm on Thu,Apr 24,2014. Interesting this article should come outjust a few days after this story which shows Posts:3 Tompkins County as the 96th most expensive county(out of 3,144 counties)for housing(the wage needed for renting a one-bedroom apartment). hftp://www.wash ington post.com/blogs/won kbiogtwp/2014/04/22/wh at-youd-n eed-to- make-in-every-county-in-america-to-afford-a-decent-one-bedroom/(be sure to check out the interactive map and the original National Low Income Housing Coalition report). By the way,"Ithaca"in the New York Times article reference may really be Tompkins County(I tried to find out whether that was the case,but was unable).The latter is the official geography of the Ithaca metropolitan area and frequently the basis for many stats on"Ithaca". According to the NLIHC report,Tompkins County is the most expensive of ANY upstate NY county.The next closest NY counties with higher rankings are downstate (Dutchess and Orange).Tompkins County is even higher than the counties in the booming oil fields of North Dakota.In Tompkins County,it takes a wage of more than Log In to report.I Link read more(about 12 more lines) Print comments i> Sections Services Contact us Search I is home to the foollowllowingng is Home About Us Ithaca.com Ithaca Times News Contact Us Lansing Ledger Opinion Advertise Ithaca Times Search Groton Independent Sports Place An Ad Phone number: Dryden Courier Arts&Entertainment Subscription Services (607) 277-7000 Search in: Newfield News Dining Site Index Address: ✓ All Candor Chronicle Visit Ithaca Add Search Toolbar 109 N Cayuga News Spencer Random Harvest Photos Privacy Policy Opinion Trumansburg Free Press Family and Health Street Sports Interlaken Review Special Sections Ithaca , NY 14850 Arts And Entertainment Ovid Gazette Weather Dining hftp://www.ithaca.com/news/why-i s-i thaea-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/article_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm 1 8/9 9/16/2015 Why Is Ithaca One of the Least Affordable US Cities?-Ithaca Times:News Classifieds Visit Ithaca Family And Health Photo Galleries Video ©Copyright 2015,Ithaca Times,Ithaca,NY.Powered by BLOX Content Management System from TownNews.com.[Terms of Use I Privacy Policy] http://www.ithaca.com/news/why-i s-ithaca-one-of-the-least-affordable-us-cities/article_e67f68f4-cb0e-11 e3-9571-001 a4bcf887a.htm I 9/9 9/16/2015 In Many Cities,Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class-The New York Times i OCTOBER WATCH TRAILER. Q5hjeXc%vL1*rkVR_Rmo http://nyti.ms/1jEQEDI BUSINESS DAY In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class By SHAILA DEWAN APRIL 14, 2oi4 MIAMI — For rent and utilities to be considered affordable, they are supposed to take up no more than 30 percent of a household's income. But that goal is increasingly unattainable for middle-income families as a tightening market pushes up rents ever faster, outrunning modest rises in pay. The strain is not limited to the usual high-cost cities like New York and San Francisco. An analysis for The New York Times by Zillow, the real estate website, found 90 cities where the median rent — not including utilities — was more than 30 percent of the median gross income. In Chicago, rent as a percentage of income has risen to 31 percent, from a historical average of 21 percent. In New Orleans, it has more than doubled, to 35 percent from 14 percent. Zillow calculated the historical average using data from 1985 to 2000. Nationally, half of all renters are now spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, according to a comprehensive Harvard study, up from 38 percent of renters in 2000. In December, Housing Secretary Shaun http://www.nyti m es.com/2014/04/15/business/m ore-renters-fi nd-30-affordabi I ity-ratio-unattai nable.htm 1 1/5 9/16/2015 In Many Cities,Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class-The New York Times Donovan declared "the worst rental affordability crisis that this country has ever known." Apartment vacancy rates have dropped so low that forecasters at Capital Economics, a research firm, said rents could rise, on average, as much as 4 percent this year, compared with 2.8 percent last year. But rents are rising faster than that in many cities even as overall inflation is running at little more than 1 percent annually. One of the most expensive cities for renters is Miami, where rents, on average, consume 43 percent of the typical household income, up from a historical average of just over a quarter. Stella Santamaria, a divorced 4o-year-old math teacher, has been looking for an apartment in Miami for more than six months. "We're kind of sick of talking about it," she said of herself and fellow teachers in the same boat. "It's like, are you still living with your mom? Yeah, are you? Yeah." After 11 years as a teacher, Ms. Santamaria makes $41,000, considerably less than the city's median income, which is $48,000, according to Zillow. Even dual-income professional couples are being priced out of the walkable urban-core neighborhoods where many of them want to live. Stuart Kennedy, 29, a senior program officer at a nonprofit group, said he and his girlfriend, a lawyer, will be losing their $2,3oo a month rental house in Buena Vista in June. Since they found the place a year ago, rents in the area have increased sharply. "If you go by a third of your income, that formula, even with how comfortable our incomes are, it looks like it's going to be impossible," Mr. Kennedy said. Part of the reason for the squeeze on renters is simple demand — between 2007 and 2013 the United States added, on net, about 6.2 million tenants, compared with 208,000 homeowners, said Stan Humphries, the chief http://www.nyti m es.com/2014/04/15/business/m ore-renters-fi nd-30-affordabi I ity-ratio-unattai nable.htm 1 2/5 9/16/2015 In Many Cities,Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class-The New York Times economist of Zillow. That trend is continuing as young people and doubled-up families move out on their own. "They're creating a lot of incremental demand," Mr. Humphries said. But new households rarely plunge straight into homeownership, especially given that mortgages are much harder to obtain than they were before the financial crisis. "The expectation is that when they strike out into their own units they'll be moving into rental as opposed to the owner side," he said. And as rents head higher in the tightest markets, many are discovering that living on their own is proving unaffordable, forcing them to double up again. Arturo Breton, a 37-year-old waiter in Miami Beach, said that after years living on his own, he was joining forces with a roommate who works as a manager at J. C. Penney. "I've come down to the conclusion that in this country, it's easier for two people to pay the rent than for one person," he said. For many middle- and lower-income people, high rents choke spending on other goods and services, impeding the economic recovery. Low-income families that spend more than half their income on housing spend about a third less on food, 50 percent less on clothing, and 8o percent less on medical care compared with low-income families with affordable rents, according to a new report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. And renters amass less wealth, even non-housing wealth, than homeowners do. The problem threatens to get worse before it gets better. Apartment builders have raced to build more units, creating a wave of supply that is beginning to crest. Miami added 2,50o rental apartments last year, and 7,500 more are expected in the next two years, according to the CoStar Group, a real estate research firm. But demand has shown no signs of slackening. And as long as there are plenty of upper-income renters looking for apartments, there is little incentive to build anything other than expensive units. As a result, there are in effect two http://www.nyti m es.com/2014/04/15/business/m ore-renters-fi nd-30-affordabi I ity-ratio-unattai nable.htm 1 3/5 9/16/2015 In Many Cities,Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class-The New York Times separate rental markets that are so far apart in price that they have little impact on each other. In one extreme case, a glut of new luxury apartments in Washington has pushed high-end rents down, even while midrange rents continue to rise. "Increasing the supply is not going to increase the number of affordable units; that is a complete and utter fallacy," said Jaimie Ross, the president of the Florida Housing Coalition. "People say if there really was a great need, the market would provide it; the market would correct itself. Well, the market has never corrected itself and it's only getting worse." Money for affordable housing has dried up at a time when it is needed most. Federal housing funds, in a form now known as HOME grants, have been cut in half over the last decade. The percentage of eligible families who receive rental subsidies has shrunk, to 23.8 percent from 27.4 percent, the Harvard study found. And Florida, which like other states faced large budget shortfalls after the financial crisis, has raided its housing trust fund, funded by a real estate transfer tax, for several years running. This year, the Legislature has proposed restoring at least part of the money. Cities have been left to address the problem on their own, with some granting exceptions to their own zoning laws to allow for things like micro- apartments. Miami has allowed some variances to its urban plan for projects like Brickell View Terrace, which will have 176 units in a prime location near a Metrorail station. Ninety of the units will be affordable for people making 6o percent of the median income, to for people making less, and the rest will be market rate. But a seemingly insatiable demand for luxury condos in Miami, created in part by wealthy Latin Americans, has caused land prices to soar, making affordable housing projects harder to build anywhere close to downtown. Moving farther out is cheaper, but the cost savings on housing can be quickly wiped out by transportation costs. A 2012 study by the Center for Housing http://www.nyti m es.com/2014/04/15/business/m ore-renters-fi nd-30-affordabi I ity-ratio-unattai nable.htm 1 4/5 9/16/2015 In Many Cities,Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class-The New York Times Policy found that Miami was the most expensive metropolitan area in the country when housing and transportation costs were combined. In many markets, buying a home is considerably cheaper than renting, and Miami is no exception. But many people are shut out of buying because their income is too low, they don't qualify for a mortgage or they are burdened by other debt. In 2oo8, a quarter of rental applicants were still paying off student loans, according to CoreLogic, but as of last fall half of them were doing so. Steve Gunn, 25, the marketing director for a Miami real estate brokerage firm, said he could certainly afford an apartment on his salary of$52,500 — if he weren't paying more than $800 a month in student loan debt. Instead, he commutes go minutes to work. From his mother's house. Correction: April 19, 2014 A chart on Tuesday with the continuation of an article about rising rents that are out of the reach of the middle class misstated the time span of the data shown. The chart tracked the rise of median rent in various cities from the first quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2013, not the third. A version of this article appears in print on April 15, 2014, on page Al of the New York edition with the headline: In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class. © 2015 The New York Times Company http://www.nyti m es.com/2014/04/15/business/m ore-renters-fi nd-30-affordabi I ity-ratio-unattai nable.htm 1 5/5 Least Affordable Rents The'United States is axperiencing a rent affordability crisis. Here are the. 20 cities where rents are hichest relative to median gross income.: Median rent as a share of median income 2000 A 13 1st qtF. 4th qi-. .................................. 34.1% L(m Angeles 47,0r% ...—..................................... ................. 25.5 412 Miami ................................................... ......... 24.4 4L8 College Station.Tex. .. ......... L ..1- - 25.2 41.6 Santa CnE. Calif. ...................I. ...................... 30.9 San Diego 4L4 .......1. .—I........................i..'......... 24.7 M7 San Francisco ...................... ...................................... 29.8 Salinas, Calif. M6 ....................... ...... 34.1 San Luis Obispo.Calif. 4&5 —............ ... 24.1 39-.8 Santa Rosa. Calif. 23.7 39.5 New York ...... ............I....... .... 34.3 fthaca�N.Y. 36.6 ................................... .... ............ 24.8 3fL5 Napa-Calif. 27.6 37.8 Flagstaff,Ariz. ............ ....... ......... 25.2 37.7 Punta Gonda. Fl;a- 22.15 37.2 Bould,er. Cuk�. ...................... .......--...........—I............ 27.6 Honolulu 3619 ...................................:;.:;x.................... 9/16/2015 Cornell Daily Sun Wednesday,September 16th About Advertise The Spot Contact Us ]NQEPEMQEM53NCE i8&0 News Opinion Sports Arts Science Dining Multimedia Blogs You are here:Home»News»In Housing Rush,Cornellians Weather Collegetown Line for Hours In Housing Rush, Cornellians Weather Colle2etown Line for Hours October 3,2014 1:06 am0 comments By SLOANE GRINSPOON In what has become an annual spectacle,students camped out outside the Ithaca Renting Company Wednesday evening in the hopes of signing a lease for an apartment in Collegetown for the upcoming year. While this trend has become a tradition in recent years,some students claim it is possible social media could have played a factor in more students getting in line earlier than past years. � � f } r ram* i Get The Sun's latest stories,right in your Students wait in lir inbox every morning. cure housing for the 2015-16 academic year.(KK Yu/Sun Staff Photographer) Your email http://cornel Isun.com/blog/2014/10/03/cornel I i ans-weather-col I egetown-housi ng-I i ne-for-hours/ 1/6 9/16/2015 Cornell Daily Sun Lisa Everts'92,the Subscribe at the first group arrived at about 9 a.m.Tuesday—24 hours before leases became avail esday,waiting in the line for different amounts of time. "We've had variatidlih 01 141UN UVC1y yi'411'ii!fl"Many yi!3P5, 11VCrL Salo. e anywhere from 20 groups waiting for two or three hours to 40 groups waiting for 24 hours or more." The reason Ithaca Renting Company waits to allow tenants to sign leases until Oct. 1—when many other landlords and renting companies allow prospective tenants to sign early in September—is to allow current tenants the chance to resign,Evert said. 3 "We wait until Oct. 1 to give our 624 current residents the opportunity to renew their own apartments,"Evert said."We feel that that is fair to our current residents who have just moved in,sometimes just three or four weeks before and are still trying to get organized.We like to keep our current tenants." This year,according to Charlie Miller'17,social media may have played a role in persuading more students to get in line earlier. "Two guys posted a Facebook status Monday night saying they started camping,which many people believed,so they came out early,"Miller said. The students in the picture,which was posted in the Facebook group"Overheard at Cornell,"were waiting in line on Monday because they were signing a lease agreement on Tuesday,a day before everyone else. According to Siddharth Panchanathan'16,one of the students pictured,they were eligible for preferential signing because they had already rented from the Ithaca Renting Company. Students in the line also governed themselves during the wait and a leader of the line was unofficially elected,according to Miller. "By the time my group started at 5 p.m.on Tuesday,a sophomore named Rohit Jha had taken control of the line and made a list of the order everyone showed up in before him.After that he became the`leader'of the group,having newcomers sign the list and get in order,"Miller said."When Rohit took charge and made the list,everyone started trusting him and he settled any minor conflicts." Rohit Jha'17 took initiative to be a leader in line because he was scared that chaos would break out. "I was nervous that the order would break down and I would not be left a place to live for next year.The most difficult aspect of being the leader was trying to earn the trust of my peers waiting in line and maintaining a calm presence within the line,"Jha said. Gina LoMastro'17,who waited in line overnight from 3 to 6 a.m.on Wednesday,said she chose to rent from the Ithaca Renting Company because of the later start date and relatively less expensive pricing despite knowing she would have to wait in the line. "I wanted to room with five other people and we started the process a little bit late.By the time we started really looking at housing there wasn't that much left and everything left was really expensive,"LoMastro said. LoMastro said that camping out was not entirely a bad experience. "Some of my friends brought tarps and set up blankets to sleep in line,"she said. Panchanathan,who also camped out overnight,agreed that the experience had enjoyable moments. "If you have company as I did,it's not as bad,"Panchanathan said."We just played card games and practiced algorithmic interview questions." Colleen Price'98,a realtor at Ithaca Renting Co.,came to the office to let students wait inside when it was pouring rain. "They're all generally very polite... and they were all studying,"Price said. Though Price said she was pleased that students want to rent from Ithaca Renting Company,she says that she does not want renting to be a stressful process. "They're welcome to wait,but this is not something that we ask them to do.This is its own phenomenon that was not started by us,"Price said. "It's great that the apartments are popular,and we're happy that they're popular,but this is completely student-initiated." Share this: Like 81 Tweet <4 �G• Share � 0 Email Author:Sloane Grinspoon Sloane Grinspoon is a Sun Staff Writer in The Sun's News Department.She can be reached at srinspoon@comellsun.com. http://cornel I sun.com/blog/2014/10/03/cornel I i ans-weather-col I egetown-housi ng-I i ne-for-hours/ 2/6 Collegetown ParkingStudy Ithaca, New York July 18, 2012 );(plannin8u- pstate research group poiicy • communicauons Special thanks to the'rity ofaca Department of Planning and Development, the City of Ithaca GIS Program, Tomp s County Public Library. Contents ABOUT THE AUTHORS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 SCOPE OF STUDY 7 FINDINGS 9 BEST PRACTICES 15 CONCLUSION 20 FURTHER RESOURCES 21 Appendix 1: METHODOLOGY Appendix 2: SURVEY AND RESULTS Appendix 3: MAPS Appendix 4: PROJECT NARRATIVE ABOUT THE AUTHORS C.J. Randall cjrandall@upstateresearch.org C.J. is a researcher and planner with a focus on energy efficiency, energy-based economic development, and local governance in upstate New York. Her recent work includes briefing the Vermont Natural Resources Council and natural gas impact research for the Community and Regional Development Institute. Her work on the potential eco' mic and legal impacts of energy development on New York's local roads has been'cjtc'ulate theV New York State Assembly and the Maryland Department of the Envifonment. Sh a Sustainability Consortium Energy Fellow in 2010 and currently serves on the City of It onservation Advisory Council. C.J.is currently writing a book on energy innovations developed in upstate New York. She has a Master's in Regional Planning from Cornell University. David J.West,LEED-AP, dwest@upstateresearch.org David is a researcher an n -itlaf ?onsustainable development, Smart Growth, and active transportatio e studied Planning t Cornell University,and now lectures part- time in the Departin ity and Regional Planning. While a graduate student at Cornell, David lead Design Conne -t, a pro Bono design and planning collective where students complete resea j nd public outreach programs for community groups to kickstart innovative 1 mitiaDavi viously worked as a planning consultant for a national full servi nsulting , Campresser&McKee. He has authored articles in the Journal of Property Tax Assessment&Administration,the Journal of Planning Education and Research, Planning Magazine, and New'Urban News. David has been a LEED Accredited Professional since 2008 and has consulted on a number projects including co-authoring Los Angeles World Airport's groundbreaking Sustainable Design and Planning Guidelines,reviewing pedestrian safety at Portland OR's Tri-Met light rail stations, and developing a parcel prioritization study for the Central Indiana Land Trust. He is currently working on a survey project funded by the USDA that involves interviewing farmers, distributors and customers of a regional food hub collecting financial data to perform a statewide economic input-output analysis. Upstate Research Group 309 West Green Street Ithaca,New York 14850 (607) 272-2179 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was commissioned to provide the data, analysis,and research necessary to evaluate Collegetown Crossing. The project proposes a transit-oriented,mixed- use development in the core of Ithacds Collegetown neighborhood. The project has garnered significant neighborhood support,yet some questions may remain about the efficacy of allowing development without requiring the provision of parking. The City of Ithaca Planning Board specified four questions that needed to be answered through a survey of residents: . • What percentage of Collegetown residents have cars i aca? • How many of the residents who currently keep a c a would continue to do so if they were offered a free TCAT bus p s1lfid$50 aca Carshare credits? • Given a range of prices,what percentage dents decide not t p a car in Ithaca at each price range? • What is the price range and availability o n Collegetown? In seeking answers to these questio ve foun the ollowing: • The rate of car ownership amon ap roldents was 26.8%. The rate of car ownership Mbng Parking Demand Generation, Collegetown residents who ased on resident perception of parking availability said their buil irjg`did no N BROUGHTACAR offer parking as�16./ 0 DIDNOTBRINGACAR Based on this surve t providing parking is Is stroest mitigation m e PARKING NOT PARKING DON'T g OFFERED(35.8%) OFFERED(61.5%) KNOW(2.7%) correlated with reduced p rking Figure 1:Residents who believe that parking is offered at their dem** building are much more likely to bring a car. • Approximately 39% of Car Owners Willing to Give Up Car Collegetown apartment In exchange for bus pass and/or carshare credit residents with a car in Ithaca said that they would give ■ WOULD GIVE UP CAR up their car in exchange WOULD NOT GIVE UP CAR for either a free bus pass, to $50 in carshare credits, or both. Figure 2:38.9%of residents who brought a car to Ithaca say they would give it up in exchange for a bus pass and/ • Approximately 82% of respondents or$50 in carshare credit. with cars stated that the maximum price they would pay for parking was $240 or less per month. With only 18% of parkers willing to pay over$240 per month, it is clear that there is very 2 little market for parking What is the maximum price you would pay for parking? priced at the theoretical Respondents who keep a car in Ithaca cost of providing it at $274 Collegetown Crossing. $zoo+ Victoria Transportation $211-$240 1 Policy Institute (2012) estimates a monthly cost $181-$210 of$274 for construction s,s,-s,s0 0 e and maintenance of an a underground parking space s101-s130 in a non-CBD urban area.' It $71-$100 • Prices paid for parking $41-$70 varied widely from under $0-$40 1 $40 per month to over Perc spondents who stated them they would pay $240. The median range was in this range or more. for all respondents was Figur e cost of b g parking at Coll etown Crossing igher t ost current residents are willing to $101 - $130 per month. Ten percent of parkers who said their building offered parking,parked on the street for free;these Where do you park? residents reported p pondents who keep a car in Ithaca median price of$ - 1 per month. All p ers w On the street At my building said their buifhin-g did- Garage or lot not at my building offer parking rented pr ate Dryden Rd.garage spaces elsewhere,with On campus a median price a o Residents who said their Residents who said their building does not $ 130. building offers parking. offer parking. i� Based on the low percentage of Figure 4:The only residents who reported parking on the street residents who bring cars it is clear also stated that their building offered parking. Graphs are proportional to the number of responses in each there is unmet demand for car- group. free development in Collegetown. Parking prices are below the market cost of creating new structured spaces,yet above the price that many residents are willing to pay. This oversupply and underpricing distorts the market and encourages residents and commuters to bring cars into the neighborhood. Residents who said their building did not offer parking are not creating parking spillover effects; 83.5% of residents choose not to bring cars. Those that do bring cars pay for parking at other off-street locations,taking advantage of the fact that the required supply is higher than the demand from on-site residents. Developments 1. CBD refers to a city's central business district. A non-CBD urban area generally has less business density than the CBD,but significantly more dense than a suburban area. 3 that do include parking have attracted drivers, including a significant number who park on neighborhood streets because they are unwilling to pay to park. It is unclear exactly why providing parking would attract residents who ultimately park on the street,but the statistical correlation is very strong. Based on this evidence,adding additional parking at new residential developments would likely increase -rather than decrease - spillover problems while also attracting new drivers to the area to fill new off-street parking spaces. In the following pages we explore the results of the survey in greater detail and pull lessons from the most current research with the hope that it may i form and guide the Planning&Development Board,the Board of Zoning Appeals, mon Council, and the interested public in assessing the potential for neighborh arking impacts from Collegetown Crossing's development as proposed. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The core of Collegetown is typified by a mix of commercial and residential buildings that are urban in character. Each of the buildings surveyed has a Walk Score between 80 and 88 on a scale of 0-100,indicating a`Very Walkable'location; Ithacas average Walk Score is 73. Midtown Manhattan, for comparison,has a Walk Score of 89. Recent studies of parking in Collegetown include the Travers Associates (1998) and Greig(2000) reports. Complaints noted in these reports include parking fees,the permit system at the Dryden Road garage,lack of enforcement of rking laws, and `spillover. Parking spillover is a catch-all term used to describe tJ& se of parking in one area to meet demand generated somewhere else by custo s,visitors, commuters, or residents. Spillover is an inherently problematic term es that residents of a given block have a greater claim than others to parrl�on str _. at are publicly owned. Despite the perception that there is a parking shortage in Collegetown,we found evidence of substantial vacancies, suggesting that any arking problems are more an issue of parking management than su 1' The off-street municipal garage on Dr den Road as 17 spots. Parking is free after 6 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays on e street, and free after 8 p.m. in the garages. But even when free,there are few cars i e p g garagin the evenings and weekends. Average Occupancy Municipal and private ge p king City owned garages data was collected on foul weekdays and a weekend day, April 0 through May 5, g 2012. On average, the four cityparkingLate Morning garages (incL&ng Green Street-,at 400 spaces; S Street at 350 spa g and 700 sp s at Cayuga Street` sat Half Cayuga Dryden Green Seneca empty during Vweek9% empty on Evening the weekends.While the cuequirements in the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone (City of Figure S:Average garage occupancy of city owned garages, recorded periodically over a one week timespan. See Ithaca§325-20(3)(C)) require one parking space Appendix for full data. for every two occupants,we can best understand the current state of the neighborhood by determining the Real Parking Ratio. This is an important measure for understanding impacts of change on the neighborhood because it is based on the reality on the ground rather than a theoretical concept of what the neighborhood might be like if fully redeveloped using current zoning. In order to understand the scope of impact on the neighborhood's parking supply,we must first know about the supply. 5 Because the major item in question for Collegetown Crossing is off-street parking, the Real Parking Ratio considers only off-street spaces. Although some Collegetown residents do choose to use free on-street parking for storage purposes, this is expressly forbidden by local codes. Parking for longer than 24 hours on any public street or in public garages,other than the Cayuga Street garage, is illegal. Enforcement of this provision is lacking based on reports looking at Collegetown parking issues over the last two decades. To accurately gauge the current Real Parking Ratio for Collegetown,the number of people per parking space at the neighborhood level,we combined 010 census data with a boots on the ground parking count. Neighborhood Real Parking Ratio(residents per space) 2.603 Neighborhood Parking Ratio w/103 additional residents .659 Percent Change w/ 103 additional residents 2% Neighborhood Parking Ratio w/103 additional resi nd+ parking 2.580 spaces Percent Change w/ 103 additional residents and+57 new p spaces -0.91% Difference between change with and chanthout parking 3.03% Adjacent Blocks Real Parkin idents ace) 2.931 Adjacent Blocks Parkin o w/ 10 ditiona 'dents 3.018 Percent Change w/1 ditional residents 2.94% Adjacent Blocks Parkin w/J 03 additiA esidents+57 new parking 2.880 spaces Percent C w itio idents+57 new parking spaces -1.75% Differ etween chan ith an ange without parking 4.69% From the pe tiv he neighborhood as a whole the addition of the new residents withou ditional provision for parking creates a relatively small impact. The total change am unts to about a 2% increase in the parking ratio, compared to the 1% decrease that would result if the theoretical development included parking based on current zoning. Zooming in closer to the project's block and adjacent blocks,the area has an existing ratio of 2.94 residents per parking space,which with the proposed development would rise to 3.069. The status quo on the project's block is currently 3.248, for comparison. 6 SCOPE OF STUDY Our focus in this report is on parking preferences and behavior of residents in high- density apartment buildings, and Collegetown's off-street parking,both public and private. Previous studies of Collegetown residents have shown significant differences in car ownership and driving behavior based on residents'building type. Greig (2000) distinguished three building types: single-family homes,multiple dwellings, and apartment buildings. She found distinct parking behaviors in each group. To best predict the behavior of future Collegetown Crossing residents,we focused our survey on residents of apartment buildings, defined as buildings with 20 o more units.While other buildings in the neighborhood could be interpreted as "apaients;'with the proposed project at over 50 units, adding buildings to the sample with less than 20 units would make the findings less applicable to the prop Pr t. In addition to the apartment category,our survey found a significant il�rence 1 avior between residents in apartment buildings that provided par ' nd those tha not i t VI Defining the boundary of our study area,we looked to the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone,adopted in 2002 (see appendix for map),which best w • -- 'zr ��r w =Jll•@ defines the neighborhood. E o .• The boundary was simplifies L, w _ �,e, '• to contain only whole bl iy : "'� • • alb C.OK ST • N� • due to data availabilit nsu ' B00LST s - •�•• population data goes to block level), allowing an e �•,�' r �: . . ,•4 count of reSl -I1tS In StU ea �� ��� .M�ro�i� r �p x rather th ugh est> S. had thoWed benefit o ovin the south side of State Str from Study Area a 250 500 1,000, the study area which w have Figure 6:Simplified study area:includes only whole blocks to been problematic since the area was a facilitate use of census data. See appendix for CPOZ large construction zoife at the time of the map for comparison. survey,but had been occupied during the 2010 census. This discrepancy could have skewed the numbers.We believe these changes are inconsequential to defining the character of the neighborhood particularly in relation to the project site which is in the core of the neighborhood. A review of building records found 13 buildings with 20 or more units in the study area. We determined that the maximum occupancy of these buildings is 2104 residents. In order to complete a statistically significant survey- a 95% confidence level with a 5% confidence interval-we collected responses from 330 residents. 7 The study is focused on the specific site and building characteristics of the proposed Collegetown Crossing development. Future planning for the neighborhood would benefit from a study that includes analysis of single-family homes,multi-family units, and business needs to further support an area parking plan (for example,while beyond the scope of our study,in her comprehensive look at on-street parking Greig found that 4 out of 5 residents parking on the street lived in multiple dwelling units while only 1 in 5 lived in apartments). c . . e - WL - 4ypf R ,l f Y y 7 k Symbo Building 1 717 East Buffal 2 115 Cascadilla P1.,Fascadilla Hall 3 111-113 Dryden Rd.,Collegetown Plaza 4 1 Ifypryden Rd.,Eddygate Park Apartments 5 400 College Ave.,College Ave Apartments 6 420 College Ave.,Sheldon Court 7 405-403 College Ave. 8 206-208 Dryden Rd.,Collegetown Court 9 114 Summit Ave.,High Chaparral 10 151 Dryden Rd.,Collegetown Center 11 312 College Ave. 12 301 College Ave. 4-7 211-217 Linden Ave. Proposed project:307 College Ave.,Collegetown Crossing g FINDINGS Worst Case Scenario: Expected increase in parking demand if mitigation efforts have zero effect. In attempting to estimate the impact of a new development on CollegetowlA parking supply,it is important to accurately estimate the expected number of cars that residents will bring to the neighborhood. Collegetown Crossing is proposed without incorporating any parking and thus includes various mitigation strategies to ensure that new residents do not bring cars. To determine the impact oft is proposal we must first understand how many cars would be expected without any gation, then assess the utility of proposed mitigation measures, and finally deter e the impact of any cars expected despite these mitigation efforts. In this sec ti explore the first of these three questions and describe the methods used t cahipute a st case scenario of 19 cars,based on the assumption that mitigation sures have ze ect. s In developing a worst case scenario for par ' g generation,we can start by looking to zoning. Based on the current requirements for zone B-2b, Collegetown Crossing would be required to provide 57 parkin�spaces. To evaluate the validity of the zoning as a measure of expected demand it is4ielpful to understand the metrics used in creating the current minimum requirements. The City of Ithaca commissioned a study(Greig 2000) in response to neighborhood perceptions and complaints that new development in CollegetdWn had resulted in excessive on-street parking by new residents. The Greig study suggested minimum parking requirements for new development increase from 1 space per 3 resid` is to 1 space per 2 residents. Greig stated that increasedtarking ratios in zoning sould be "based on car ownership rates derived from the residential survey" (Greig 2000, 88). Accompanying this recommendation, Greig noted'that parking is a dynamic entity and therefore should be subject 41ely reevaluation. Residents of all apartment buildings To that end,our survey of Collegetown ' 0 Brought a car residents reveled significantly different data ❑idnl bring a c compared to the last study of the areas parking r issues. In 2000,Greig reported that 49% of apartment residents owned cars. Our study shows that in 2012,less than 27% of apartment residents brought a car to Ithaca. The different statistics may be the product of a variety of factors. The first difference to consider is the way the survey questions were posed and administered. Greig's survey asked residents if they owned a car,while our study asked residents if they keep a car in Ithaca. In a neighborhood where approximately 95% of residents are transient students,with a"home" somewhere else,this is an important 9 distinction when trying to effectively estimate the demand for parking. Several survey respondents stated that they do not keep a car in Ithaca because it was too difficult to bring their car from wherever they call home (for example: "home"was either in California, or outside of the country). If these residents had been asked if they own a car, as was done in the Greig study,the answer would have been yes;however, cars owned by Collegetown residents,but left behind in California,Europe, and Asia clearly don't affect parking demand in Collegetown. Greig speculated that the high rate of car ownership found in 2000 was likely a result of the economic boom and she suggested that ownership rat s were likely to fall, as they have,when economic growth declined. She also that the rate seemed surprisingly high given the fact that 95% of the neig ood's residents were college students and a variety of amenities,including Cor mably their main destination for daily activities),were within easy walki stance. That college students have reduced their rate o ownership so subs 'ally over the last 12 years may seem shocking;however, nt rese based on the National Household Transportation Survey shows that th ubstantial national decline in car dependence among 16- to 34-year-olds betwe 01 and 2009. This group reduced their per capita vehicle miles,traveled by 23% oven that time period,traveled 40%more miles on public transit,and took 23%more bicycle trips than they had in 2001 (Davis, Dutzik and Baxandall,201 . Given the intent of the zoning to match existing car ownership rates e current survey results - in addition to the issues with the 2000 sti: meas e o owneiVip and the change in demographics since that time-it is®eawnable educe the Vorst case scenario of expected parking generation.While th2,cdrrent ed on an expectation of 57 cars,based on current data,we can expec 26.8% of apartment residents to bring cars,reducing the worst cas io to a and for about 30 spaces. Furthrmore,the disaggregatio our survey results between residents who stated that their buildings offer parking and residents who stated that their buildings do not offer parking revealthht only 16.7% of residents in buildings without parking bring cars to Ithaca. A statistical analysis,using a Chi-Squared test,shows that the correlation between providing parking and increasing car ownership is very strong. There is only a 1 in 1000 chance of encountering such a significant difference in car ownership rates among our sample if the provision of parking was not similarly correlated with the rate of parking needed in the population. This revelation shows that the worst case scenario for Collegetown Crossing parking generation is just under 19 cars. Ten of the survey respondents did not indicate whether or not their building included parking;none of these residents brought a car to Ithaca. In several cases respondents within a single building disagreed as to whether or not parking was offered at that building. To further understand the situation we compared the rate of bringing a car in different buildings based on our observation of which 10 buildings included on-site or adjacent parking. We found that 15.6%of respondents in buildings without parking brought cars,while 39.7% of respondents in buildings with parking brought cars. These numbers suggest a slightly greater impact of not providing parking but are in the same ballpark as the survey responses. When evaluating the expected actions of future residents,the perception of parking availability is as useful, if not more useful, of a metric as the real provision of parking;perception drives the individual choice of whether or not to bring a car. For this reason, and in the interest of remaining conservative,we are basing our findings and recommendations on the survey response numbers. Mitigation Strategies The proposal for Collegetown Crossing as a car-free de includes several possible mitigation strategies to further reduce the pos "b ty of n sidents imposing a burden on the neighborhood's parking s y. This sectio 1 examine various proposed and suggested mitigation me-as and their expecte ctiveness. The largest, and strongest mitigating factor our survey could verify was simply not including parking.As discussed above, apartment buildings without parking attracted a significantly lower number of drivers than buildings with,parking. In addition, the drivers who stated their building did not offer parking imposed less of a burden on the neighborhood: they all rented off-sheet parking elere,while 10% of drivers who stated their building did-offer parking opted to park on the street rather than pay. Our examination of prices that residents pad for parking suggests that drivers who stated that their building did not offer parking Vaid less on average for their spaces (presumably they fou ea p r alterive lots where the required supply exceeds demand from the adjace ing). MW Approx' ely 730o curre artment dwellers in Collegetown do not have a car in I a. The new deveiopme t needs to capture less than 7% of the 1620 car-free apartmen 'dents to ha, vacancy without attracting a single car. Based on the neighbo 's wal `bility and premium location- in addition to the extreme shortage of hou aca in general and trends in car ownership -we expect there will also be a ificant market for Collegetown Crossing beyond the current apartment residents. In addition to not providing parking, if Collegetown Crossing uses marketing and branding to clearly state that it is a car-free development,it is unlikely that it will attract residents looking to bring a car. Since many landlords in the area have already unbundled parking from the cost of an apartment,rental rates at Collegetown Crossing are unlikely to be lower than competing options. However,if significant perks are included as mitigation measures it is possible that they could actually increase the likelihood of attracting drivers who could find parking elsewhere and still benefit from free bus passes, carshare subsidies,bike storage,etc. 11 Our study found that 8 1% of residents who did not bring a car to Ithaca would prefer renting an apartment that included bus passes and carshare credits. This demonstrates that the target market would likely be attracted to Collegetown Crossing. In hindsight, it would have been better to ask this question of both residents with and without cars. It is notable,however,that 19% of residents who did not bring a car to Ithaca said that providing bus passes or carshare credits would not influence their choice of apartment buildings. Approximately 39% of Collegetown apartment residents who do keep a car in Ithaca said that they would give up their car in exchange for either a free bus pass, $50 in carshare credits, or both. 30% of residents who said their building did not provide parking stated that they would give up their car in exchangepr e transit pass or carshare credits. If we again assume that branding 0�'Iproviding "marketi the building as car-free and other mitigating strategies have no e a ass and carshare credit can be expected to reduce the nuU13. Collegeto rossing brings to the neighborhood by 30%,from abo Due to the neighborhood's oversupply of parking`compared to resident demand, providing parking and pricing it at an.appropriate rate at Collegetown Crossing is unlikely to be an adequate mitigation measure. Our survey shows that students are unwilling to pay the full cost of building``°parking. However, once a landlord has built parking they are unlikely to se'the price higher"than residents are willing to pay because doing so would result in' 'gh vaca4cy. One nearby apartment building with on-site parking, 312 ge Ave e, recently Iduced their parking rates to$195 per month from $235 (ba n rel of previously cached web page and current web page), suggesting that Nhced unacceptable vacancy at the higher rate. Prices p ` or parefy with many reports in each price range tested: from under$40 to oveedian range for all respondents was between$101 and$130 per month. On e parking was,on average,more expensive than off-site parking;this is likely be e those parking off-site can rent from excess surface lots around the neighborhood,while many on-site spaces are structured,in order to fit required spaces on infill lots, and sit on more valuable land closer to the core of the neighborhood. All parkers who said that their building did not offer parking rented private spaces elsewhere,with a median price range of$1014130.About 10% of parkers who said that their building did offer parking parked on the street for free, yet the median price paid by residents of buildings with parking (whether or not they parked on-site) was higher,at$131-$150 per month. Among parkers who stated that their building offers parking, about 56% use the on- site parking,about 26% rent other off-street parking, about 10%park on the street, and 6%park in the municipal garage on Dryden Road (these don't add up to 100% due to rounding). 12 Many of the buildings in the survey area have unbundled parking from rents, a key strategy in parking demand management,which provides a benefit to residents who choose not to bring a car. However, since excessive supply has pushed the prices that the market will bear below the true cost,the remainder of the cost of providing parking must be rolled into apartment rental rates,forcing residents without cars to subsidize those who choose to bring cars. Because parking is unbundled and oversupplied, residents of buildings with parking can choose between the convenience of having their car on-site and the benefits of cheaper alternatives. Many landlords charge parking (and apartment) rent by theyeark�ing ther than the month,which introduced some level of error into our survey costs. Several respondents were unsure or wrote in their cost per semest rather than the monthly cost (in these instances we calculated the ly co use in our analysis). There were also a number of residents w ted that the mum they would pay for parking was below what they do p ggesting that they of handle the payment arrangements associated with the ng. Paying for parking in large lump sums, or not payng at all, distorts the economics of car ownership by decreasing the incr ost of car trips. To make truly rational economic decisions about transportati mode choice, drivers would pay separately for each instance of car use. In typical At ownership, however, significant costs are lumped together. Loan and * ce payment's, as well as maintenance and parking must be paid in lumps;o ai ere is h(tle economic benefit for car owners who forego trips. Because is situ n, every cad that residents bring into Collegetown, regardless of the inte or r likely to be used frequently,for a variety of trips, creating traffic and congesti in hat is the maximum price you would pay for parking7 addition ng up for Respondents who keep a car in Ithaca parkin $274 Average cost of developing underground parking Victoria ortati $240+ Policy Institute $211-$240 estimates a month st $181-$210 of$274 for construction $1514180 and maintenance of an 0 underground parking space a $737-$150 v in a non-CBD urban area. $101-$130 Over 82% of respondents a $71-$100 with cars stated that the maximum price they would $41-$70 pay for parking was$240 or $0-$40 less per month;68% said they Percent of respondents who stated the max.price they would pay wouldn't pay more than $210, was in this range or more. 13 57%wouldn't pay more than$180, 52%wouldnt pay more than$150,43%wouldn't pay more than$130. With a reported median price paid of between$101 and$130 it seems most parkers are able to find parking in the range they are willing to pay.With only 18% of parkers willing to pay over$240 per month,it is clear that there is very little,if any,market for parking priced at its cost to the developer. Our survey asked residents who kept a car in Ithaca why they needed one. The most significant finding from this question was that residents who stated that they needed a car for groceries and other shopping (88%of residents with cars)were willing to pay significantly more for their parking than other residents. This s ggests,as did the Greig study in 2000,that development including commercial sp especially space that could accommodate a grocery store -is likely to reduce ain justification for keeping a car in Collegetown. 14 BEST PRACTICES Collegetown already has in place most of the strategies recommended for reducing parking demand. The neighborhood has convenient access to Ithaca's primary transit routes. There is a carsharing program in place with several car locations in the neighborhood. A residential parking permit system is available in the low- density zones surrounding the core of Collegetown to prevent spillover issues. Many properties have voluntarily unbundled at least some of the price of parking from the price of living. The region's largest employer, Cornell University,is within a short walk and has implemented a successful Transportation Demand Manag ent program. Many streets in the core area have metered parking. There are a ber of remote, but transit accessible,parking areas (Cornell A and B lots; Cayuga, Green and Seneca garages) with significant capacity. The core area around troposed project includes a mixed-use center with a high residential density and v�lfiety of s ing and dining options, and design features add to the walkability o area. Mobility management by Cornell University s significant, explored in the university's 2008 transportation environmental impact statement and Transportation Impact Management System. Most of undergraduate students walk(80%) or take the bus (10%); graduate students takeethe`bus (20%) or walk(31%); most faculty and staff(55%) drive alone, though 80% of employees indicated they would take the bus if routes were more convenient. Unfortunately,not all of ^ese - sures 7Greig implemented. Metered parking spaces are under-enforce 0) and pricing is not demand- sensitive. Paying for parking, even at the low price, is a hassle due to old coin-based technology;collecting these coins imposes an additional expense on the city. Updating the neighlrhood's metering system using smart meters that accept credit cards, can sense 4ich spots are full and can alert enforcement officers as soon as a meter expires would be a,major step making it easier to pay for parking, easier to enforce parking, and easier to implement a demand based pricing structure. Enforcement of parking regulations should be a top priority in any parking policy and has the potential to either significantly reduce demand for on street parking or bring substantial new funds into the city coffers. Remote parking, although available, is not well-known by residents (Greig 2000). It could be far more effective if it were better advertised to students, if signage and wayfinding were improved and if payment by credit card or smartphone was routinely available. Residential parking permit systems (RPPS) have proven extremely successful at combating spillover parking problems -where residents or commuters in areas where parking is priced, or demand is high,park on neighborhood streets where there is less 15 demand and parking is free. There are certainly significant equity issues to consider when the city grants a virtually free and exclusive right to park on city property to residents of low-density streets with a high percentage of homeowners,while charging significantly more on high density streets where higher percentages of residents are renters. As a tool for preventing spillover,however, RPPS has an astonishing track record. Despite the known effectiveness of RPPS,less than half of the eligible blocks in Ithaca have opted to implement the system (see Appendix 3). If there are further concerns about residents using on street parking for storage,the first course of action should be full implementation of the system that is already in place. The urban design of the area has been hampered by the imposition of required parking in the neighborhood's most dense areas, making streets that should be the most walkable,less attractive. Parking lot entries on Dry Nont ge Avenue and the accompanying lighting dwarfs pedestrians and tes the street's urban fabric. The semi-surface parking lot just nort 312 C breaks up the pleasant and consistent flow of buildings to the lot eceding block. The combination of these factors and tl b'elow grade and setback commercial space,in addition to the far setback residential entryway at 312 College Avenue,have made the street front immediately surrounding the proposed Collegetown Crossing unsafe and uninviting for pedestrians There are also a few parking demand trol ashat have not been implemented,most notably that includes parking maximums rather than minimums.Making this ge d sim'ltaneously reduce demand while increasing city and pr' reven enerati6n Vrom the provision of parking. These strategies would supp e d state planning objectives in support of public transit,reducing use gas em ssions and enabling nodal,transit oriented smart growt The effective over arching trategy is an area parking plan, coupled with a system o tant evaluation and improvement,that allows the city flexibility while encouraging use,h Ising, and transportation innovations. As recommende both Greig (2000) and Novak(2012) and endorsed by Planning Director JoAnn Cornish, a reorganization of the city's parking system to clarify and consolidate under a Parking Manager would increase parking revenue and customer satisfaction. Effective management of parking has also been shown to reduce demand. As it stands now,residential parking permits are obtained through the City Chamberlain;maintenance,payment collection, and enforcement in garages is done by Public Works;the Police enforce on-street parking. This setup is a source of confusion for the public and city employees. Parking and travel choices are possible through clear information and flexible, strategic use of parking quality and management efforts. Parking Management Best Practices (Litman 2006),published by the American 16 Planning Association, recommends starting with parking requirements based on actual car ownership levels (as we described in our"worst case scenario" for Collegetown Crossing), and then reducing parking requirements based on proximity to a variety of best practices shown to reduce parking demand. (See tables on following pages) In addition to the availability of amenities,parking demand is impacted by parking supply. In locations like Collegetown,where many amenities are available and many best practices are in place,parking demand management recommends reducing parking below the current rate of car ownership to account for the reductions in parking demand that are possible based on coupling reduced supply with the existing neighborhood conditions. Using these guidelines and the current conditions at the pr site we can calculate a recommended reduction in requirements for Collegeto g. Requirements can be reduced by 10%for developments within a guar e ile o ent bus service. Residential density accounts for a 1% reduction per ent per acre, lting in a 60%reduction based on the study areas average tyl. Carsharing se located within a quarter-mile reduces the demand ano#ier 5-10% or 5-10 spaces for every carshare space on-site. High walkability- calculated through a pedestrian level of service evaluation metric such as a Walk Score - can reduce demand from 5-15% (more if improvements to the walking environmental allow,shared and off-site parking). Mixed-use areas can reduce requirements by 5-106/o. The presence of a large percentage of young people can reduce requirements by 20-40%. Rental,rather than owned,housing can reduce requirements by 20,40%. Pricing parking is recommended to reduce requirements by 10-30% and unbundling the cost of parking from residential rental costs can reduce requireAnsare by 10- . These recommended reduct mu iplicative,rather than additive,with each measure only alying to the spaces remaining after the previous reduction was applied. Using'the most conservative reductions in each category,the best practices guide recommends that parking requirements at Collegetown Crossing be reduced by 84%belownthe average rat+expected car ownership for the building2. Based on our worst case scenario esti gate of 19 cars, the best practices guide would recommend a parking requirement reduction to about 3 spaces. A strong argument can be made for going beyond the most conservative reduction in several of the categories, for example the project site scores exceptionally high in walkability which would be substantially increased by the project's proposed amenities,but given the results with the minimum reduction additional reductions would be inconsequential. This projection does not include the increase in neighborhood walkability and amenities that the project may bring. This recommendation of a requirement for 3 spaces, assumes, as we have earlier in this document,that the mitigation measures proposed have no effect. 1 study area has 59.7 residents per acre total area=3,551,333 square ft.[calculated from study area boundary map] population=4865 2010[census by block] 2 100%-(90%*40%*95% 95%*95%*80*80*90%*90%) 17 Factors Affecting Parking Demand and Requirements Factor Description Analysis Method Typical Adjustment Geographic location Vehicle ownership Population and travel Adjust parking and trip generation data to identify requirements to reflect rates in an area. variations. variations in vehicle ownership and trip rates in are area. Residential density plumber of residents Models, such as Reduce parking or housing units per Holtzclaw (1994), can requirements 1% far acrelhectare. be used to determine each resident per how density affects acre, reduce vehicle ownership requirements 15% and use. where there are 15 residents per acre, and 0% where there are 30 residents per acre. Employment density Number of Adjust emplo Reduce requirements employees per acre. parking req 10% to 15% in areas to reflect mobil ith 50 or more coma ode split. loyees per grass a Land-use mix Range of land uses trip a Deduce requirements located within par d nd 5% to 10% in mixed- convenient walking reduc ctors, use developments; distance. such as and (City additional reductions ortlan 5). if parking facilities are re rking shared. fa Transit accessibility Nearby ervic gust worksite Reduce requirements frequ aII rking to reflect 10% for Dousing and qu sit commute employment within de split. Models, are-quarter mile of uch as Holtzclaw frequent bus service, (1994), can predict and 0% for housing how transit service; and employment quality affects vehicle within one-quarter ownership and use. mile of a rail transit station_ Carsharin+g - Whet a car paring Based can experience Reduce residential e is located with comparable requirements 5% to or near a programs. 10% if a cars haring r idential service is located development, within one-quarter mile, or reduce 5 to 1 10 parking spaces for each carshare vehicle located in a, building. Design hour Number of allowable Parking generation Reduce requirements annual hours a data and experience 10% to 0% if a 1 Oth parking facility may with comparable annual design hour is fill. sites. replaced by a 3h annual peak hour; this requires an 17 overflow parking plan. Factors Affecting Parking Demand and Requirements Factor Description Analysis Method Typical Adjustment Walkabil ty Quality of walking Pedestr ,ar, Reduce requirerments environment. Environmental Factor 5% to 15% in and pedestrian level walkable of service communities, with ("Evaluating additional reductions Nonmotorized if walking Transport," VTPI, improvements allow 005)_ more stared and off- site parking. Demographics Age and physical Census and other Reduce requirements ability of residents or surveys with 0% to 40% for commuters. information on a housing for young physical agility (under 30), elderly vehicle own p, ver 6 ), or disabled fe. Income Average income of Lens d other Re requirerents residents or sur with i e 10`36 20% for the commuters- an 'cle 0% lowest income owne households,and 0% informati to 0% for the Lowest 10% incorne households. Housing tenui-e Whether housing isOJFs'1W',!ur-veys Deduce requirements owned information on %to �40% for rental hicle ownership by versus owner- sing tenure. occupied housing. Pricing Pa th ce elasticity Reduce requirements or ca ut models 10% to 0% for cost- ("Transportation recovery pricing Elasticities," VTPI, (parking priced to 200 ; Pratt, 2000)- pay the full cost of parking facilities). Unbundled parr Vrksold or Price elasticity Reduce requirements eparately models. 10 to 0% where ding space, parking is unbundled. Parking and mobility Parkir,ga and mobility Methodologies Reduce requiirernents a;-anagernent management described in this 10% to 40% at programs are boob, VTPI (2005), wcrksites with well- implemented at a and experience with planned parking and site- comparable mobility management programs. programs- Contingency-based Use lower-bound Develop a Reduce requirements planning requirements. as long contingency-based based on the as additional parking parking plan as projected management described in this effectiveness of strategies can, be book. parking management implemented if strategies available needed. for implementation. 18 Table 3-7, Litman, 2006. CONCLUSION Based on our survey of Collegetown apartment residents, and off-street parking facilities, statistical analysis of the survey results and demographic changes, as well as a review of the most current best practices,previous area specific studies,interviews with key stakeholders and professional judgment we believe that Collegetown Crossing, once constructed,will not impose any negative impact on the area,either in generating additional parking issues or congestion. Our evidence suggests,with a high degree of confidence,that it is unlikely that residents of an apartment building that does not provide parking will choose to bring cars and park o the street creating spillover effects. The full implementation of the Residential ParPermit System and adequate pricing and enforcement of on-street parking r ations should fully protect the character of the neighborhood if,in the future e tors influencing parking demand shift dramatically,invalidating our ob e ations. The evidence suggests that there is a strong m for carte--free housin velopment in Collegetown, and that with the right market' end branding Collegetown Crossing should have no difficulty filling 113 beds with residents who do not have cars. Our analysis of the site and surrounding area lead us to conclude that the building as proposed will bring a significant bene `t�to the neighborhood. Replacing one of the least architecturally interesting buildings in the area and Aan under-used surface parking lot with a building that fills the 19t and creates a more consistent streetfront will make the area more pedesW friendly. Providing a dedicated through block crossing adds to the permeabilit of the street grid, making the area more walkable. Including additional�orximercial space that is appropriately provisioned for a grocery store in a neighborhoodwhere groceries are one of the only amenities not within easy walking distance is a benefit on it's own but is also likely to further decrease residential parking demand. Increasing residential density will help support neighborhood businesses while further increasiri*the efficiency of the transportation system and land use in al. 20 FURTHER RESOURCES Ithaca Carshare,Inc. 2011. "Carsharing in a Small City: Ithaca Carshare's First Two Years:' https://www dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and-d- rep ository/C-06-3 3%20Ithaca%20Carshare%20Final%20Report%20NYSERDA%20 Agreement%209821.pdf Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). City of Ithaca. "City of Ithaca Phone Survey Results."2012. http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_documents/ Minutes of Meetings/Government_Performance_and Accountability_Committee/ City%20of%20Ithaca%20Phone%20Survey%20Results° ,20-%20fin . Oreport.pdf Collegetown Vision Implementation Committ VIC 07. "The getown Vision Statement." '0 http://ithaca.govoffice.com/vertical/Sites/%7B5DCEB23D-5BF8-4AFF-806D- 68E7C14DEBOD%7D/uploads/%7B1574B692-9Al2-40 F-93A5-16EOFBC36CF8%7D. PDF Cornell University. 2008. "FINAL tran rt - d Generic Environmental Impact Statement(t-GEIS)." http://www.tgeisproje /T _Doc ents/t-FGEIS_FINAL%20 ACCEPTED-121508. Cornell University. 20 S: Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (Draft Report) :' http:// tgeispro rg S_Documents/Final-Draft-TIMS-060308.pdf Davis, Dutzik, and Bax all. 2012. "Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Drivi ess and What It Means for Transportation Policy." Frontier Group and U.S. PIR cation Fund. http://www frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/transportation-and-new-generation Duncan, Dustin T.; Aldstadt,Jared;Whalen,John;Melly, Steven J.; Gortmaker, Steven L.2011. "Validation of Walk Score®for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An Analysis of Four US Metropolitan Areas"Int.J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8,no. 11: 4160-4179. doi: 10.3390/ij erph8114160 Frank L.D., Sallis J.F., Cain L., Conway T.L., et al. 2010. "The development of a walkability index: Application to the neighborhood quality of life study."British Journal of Sports Medicine. 44 (13): 924-933. 21 Greig,Jessica. 2000. "Collegetown Parking Study."Prepared for the Collegetown Moratorium Subcommittee to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. http://www.scribd.com/doc/96771368 Litman,Todd. 2012. "Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs' Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf Litman,Todd. 2006. Parking management best practices. Chicago,Ill: American Planning Association. Author's book summary at http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf. Maley, Donald and Rachel Weinberger.2010. "Food Shoppi rban Environment: Parking Supply, Destination Choice, and Mode Choice" Pr ed at t ansportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting,Washington, DC,diary 23-27, http://wwwitdp.org/documents/ITDP_US_Parkin Report.pdf Manville,Michael, and Shoup, Donald C. 2010. "Parking requirements as a barrier to housing development: regulation and reform in Los Angel olarship,University of California. http://www escholarship.org/uc/item/lgrT499 Manville,M., and D. Shoup.2 arking, e, and Cities:'Journal Of Urban Planning And Development. 4): 245. http://shoup.bol.ucla.ec ople,P ng,Citi PD.pdf Novak Consulting Grot`up. 20 ity of Ithaca Performance Measures Framework and Organizational Analysis Report.. http://www.e °vlink.co ublic auments300/ithaca/published_documents/Clerks_ Office/Nov %201thaca%20 _eport%Z0-%20FINAL.pdf Report on cit vernance co issioned by the City of Ithaca. Travers Associates Consultants. 1998. "Cornell/Ithaca Parking Study:Existing Parking Demand,Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements" http://www.scribd.com/doc/96771284 Rick Williams Consulting. 2007. University District Parking Study,Spokane,WA. 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan&Conceptual Design Guidelines. Prepared by Goody Clancy Consultants. http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_documents/Planning_ and_Economic_Development/Collegetown/Collegetown-Urban-Plan-and-Conceptual- Design-Guidelines-Final-Web-Version.pdf Plan for Collegetown endorsed by the City of Ithaca Common Council,August 5, 2009. 22 Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2012 revision. "[U.S.] Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II - Parking Costs (Sec 5.4)' http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf Walk Score Methodology. 2011. http://www2.walkscore.com/pdf/WalkScoreMethodology.pdf The method behind the algorithms that define Walk Score rankings. Weinberger, Rachel, John Kaehny, and Matthew Rufo. 2010. "U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies.New York,NY: Institute f r Transportation and Development Policy." http://www.itdp.org/documents/ITDP-US-Parking-Repor 23 Appendix 1: METHODOLOGY In any neighborhood level study, defining the neighborhood is a difficult task. For this study we started with the Collegetown Parking Overlay Zone based on the similarity to the proposed project in location,amenities,and urban form. The boundary was simplified to contain only whole blocks due to data availability (census population data goes down to the block level), allowing an accurate count of residents in the study area rather than rough estimates. This had the added benefit of removing the south side of State Street from the study area which would have been problematic since the area was a large construction zone at the tim of the survey,but had been occupied during the 2010 census. This discrepancy co lave skewed the numbers.We believe these changes are inconsequential to defining the character of the neighborhood particularly in relation to the project site in the core of the neighborhood. A Based on the 2000 Greig study it is clear that parking demand is signi tly different for different types of buildings in Coleegetown. Greig found that apartment buildings differ significantly from buildings with fewer units,identified as multiple dwelling units. Since this study looks at the impacts of a-proposed apartment building, the survey is limited to other apartment buildings (defined s buildings with 20 or more units). Based on these selection criteria Up tate Reseah Group identified 13 buildings where residents would be sur ° yed. Address Street coup Units Survey Response Quota 717 Buffalo St 23 22 4 115 Cascad' 498 206 77 301 Colle e 26 18 312 College 121 31 400 College A 44 20 7 405-07 ve 88 20 14 420 oA04He 237 96 37 110 Dryden 240 58 37 11 Dryden R 223 23 34 151 Dryden Rd 180 154 28 206-20 Dryden R 112 50 17 211-217 `Linden 76 20 12 114 Sundt Ave 65 30 10 Total % 2104 846 326 To guarantee the statistical validity of the survey we calculated the number of responses necessary to achieve a 95% confidence level with 5% confidence interval. For this calculation we used the maximum occupancy allowed for each building- based on City of Ithaca Certificates of Compliance- to estimate the population (N) for these buildings. Given an"N"of 2104 we needed 325 survey responses. A survey response quota was allocated for each building based on the building's share of the total max occupancy, as seen in the table above. Rounding to the nearest whole person for each building resulted in a total sample size of 326. 1 Survey collectors were chosen for knowledge of urban planning and community engagement; most were graduate students or recent graduates from Cornell's Department of City and Regional Planning. Survey collectors were trained and given a basic script to ensure that no bias was interjected and to ensure consistency. The survey collectors worked in groups of two and were closely supervised by the consultants. Survey respondents were asked to complete a paper survey, a copy of which is included with the report. Surveyors were provided a randomized list of unit numbers for each building that they used to choose the order of units to survey, this measure ensu es that responses would not be subject to any selection bias. In addition to unit r mization, surveys were collected over the course of a week-May 1 through 7, - at different times of the day to minimize any selection bias. The week whe ere collected coincided with the last week of instruction before the s f Cor niversity finals,this week was chosen because a very high proportion of stude ere likely to be present. Although many of the selected buildings had controlled a entries, surveyors were able to enter most of the buildings and the survey had a response rate well over 90%. In a few cases where surveyors were asked to leave a building or where they were not able to enter a building they petitioned residents coming from or going to the building from the sideway While this method provides somewhat less randomization in a few cases,these instances comprise a relatively small part of the sample and were still reasonably rando ` to avoid sample bias. We conducted a physicalliven of ea ff-street parking space in Collegetown on foot, counting each space. Wh spaces not clearly delineated,we erred on the side of conservatism by onlpaces that a car could independently access (assuming that cars could double par m long driveways, for example,was not considered reasonable). In addition,we conducted occupancy counts at all four city parking garages - Cayuga Street, Dryden Road, Seneca Street, and Green Street- at random . es during typ' 1 (i.e., in-semester)weekday and weekend days. 2 Appendix 2: SURVEY AND RESULTS Collegetown Crossing — Parking Survey, May 2012 Location (building and unit number) and time survey was conducted: This survey is restricted to residents living in apartment buildings of the Collegetown core neighborhood. 1. Does your building offer car parking? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Do you keep a car in Ithaca? ❑ Yes ❑ No If you responded NO to #2 above, please continue. If you responded YE #2 above, please skip to question #5. 3. Why do you not have a car in Ithaca? (Please check all that apply) ❑ I do not own a car ❑ I do not need a car ❑ High price of parking ❑ Difficulty in finding free or inexpensive parki ❑ Traffic and hassle of driving ❑ Good bus service ❑ Availability of Carshare ❑ Other (please specify) 4. Would you be more likely to rent an apartmen rovided free TCAT passes, Carshare usage credits and free, secure indoor bike p g?- ❑ Yes ❑ No If you responded YES to #2 above, a continue. Those who responded NO to #2 above, please skip to the end of the survey 5. Why do you have vehicle in Ithaca? ( ase check all that apply) ❑ So I don't have to take a bus or plane to get back home to family. ❑ I have an off-campus job and use my car to get there. ❑ To get to get to grocery stores outside of Collegetown. ❑ To do other shopping outside of Collegetown. ❑ My family lives close to Ithaca, and I go home frequently. ❑ For recreational purposes (going hiking, to parks, nightclubs, etc) ❑ To get back and forth to Campus ❑ Other (please specify) 6. Where do you park your car? ❑ In a parking space provided at my building ❑ In a private parking lot or garage away from my building. (please specify location) ❑ On Campus ❑ In the Dryden Road parking garage ❑ In a Downtown parking garage ❑ On the street 7. How much do you currently pay for parking? ❑ between $0 and $40 per month ❑ between $41 and $70 per month ❑ between $71 and $100 per month ❑ between $101 and $130 per month ❑ between $131 and $150 per month ❑ between $151 and $180 per month ❑ between $181 and $210 per month ❑ between $211 and $240 per month ❑ over $240/month 8. What is the maximum price you would pay for parking? ❑ between $0 and $40 per month ❑ between $41 and $70 per month ❑ between $71 and $100 per month ❑ between $101 and $130 per month ❑ between $131 and $150 per month ❑ between $151 and $180 per month ❑ between $181 and $210 per month ❑ between $211 and $240 per month 400� A, ❑ over $240/month 40, 9. Would you cease keeping a car in Ithaca if: (Please check all that apply) ❑ You were offered free unlimited bus rides during ALL TCAT service hours, on all routes? ❑ You were offered $50 in Carshare credits for trips you may need to take after TCAT service hours? ❑ You had free, secure bike parking inside your building ❑ Other (please specify) 1901 10. If you could not afford parking in Collegetown, but were given a free TCAT bus pass, would you park at a cheaper location, such as nt us? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I curren rk ou Col own, but pay for my own bus pass (or fare). 11. If you could not afford parking in'Collegetown, or at some less expensive location, what would you do? (Please rank in order of preference, with 1 being your top choice) # Leave my car at home. I would instead bike, walk, ride with a friend, use bus transit, or use carsharing service while in Ithaca. # Try to find free overnight parking on the streets nearby, even if I have to drive around for a while. # Other (please specify) Thank you for participating in our survey! If you would like to provide your name and contact information below, we will enter you in a drawing for $100 in cash. (Drawing to be held during finals week. Contact information will be kept strictly confidential.) Name: Local Address: Phone: Email: 337 responses Summary Question 1 No 11201 Yes 206 61% No 120 36% Yas 12061 Question 2 Yes 90 27% No]2461 No 73% F-YeSIMI Question 3 Idonoto �da ar 123 51% I da not Gwn a car ar 76 31% I do nol need a Oaf' Ilig ice ofparking 90 37% Difficulty in finding fireeorinexpensiveparking 67 28% High pnCe of par_ Traffic and 32 13% Difficulty in fin... Good bus service 23 10% Availability of Carsher 11 5% Traffic and hard... Other 24 10% Good bus service People may select more than one checkbox,so percentages may add up to more than 100%. Availabllily of C,._ f7dl�r 4 25 50 75 160 125 Question 4 Yes 198 59% No 46 14% No[ab] YM;i1675 Question 5 So I don't have to take a bus or plane to get back home to family. 58 66% So t don't have t... I have an off-campus job and use my car to get there. 11 13 1 have an off-cam.._ To getto grocery stores outside ofCollegetown. 76 86% To do other shopping outside ofCollegetown. 61 69% To get to grocery.._ My familylives close to Ithaca,and I go home frequently. 6 7% For recreational purposes(going hiking,to parks,nightclubs,etc.) 45 51% To do other shopp... _ � To get back and forth to Campus. 21 24 My tarnily lives C_. Other 3 3% Fof recreational... People may select more than one checkbox,so percentages may add up to more than 100%. To-qet back and f.._ Other 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Question 6 In a parking space.provided at bu ding 40 12% In a parking spac_..� In a private parking lot or awayfrom mybuildmg. listlocation in Other) 31 9% In a pnVale park._. On Campus 5 1% In the Dryden Ro ng garage 7 2% On Campus InaDowntown garage 0 0% In the Dryden Roa...l On the street. 7 2% Other 247 73% In a Down lawn par... On the street. Other 0 49 99 147 196 245 294 Question 7 between$0 and$40 per month 11 3% between$0 and$d---- between$41 and$70 per month 11 3% between$41 and$... between$71 and$100 per month 14 4% between$101 and$130 per month 9 3% between$71 and between$131 and$150 8 2% between$101 and.._ between$151 and$180 2 1% between$181 and$210 6 2% between$131 and._ between$211 and$240 17 5% between$151 arid.._ over$240/month 8 2% between$181 and between$211 and aver$M jmonth 0 3 9 9 12 is is Question$ between$0 and$40 per month 3 1% between$0 and$4_. between$41 and$70 per month 5 1% between$41 and$... between 371 and$109 per month 15 4% between$101 and$130 per month 15 5% between$$71 and$_.- between 3131 and$150 6 2% between$101 and_- between$151 and 3180 5 1% between 3181 and$210 10 3% between$131 and_.. 7 between 5211 and$240 13 4% between$151 and..: ' over$2401mnth 13 4% between$181 and I� between$211 and... over$240;month 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Ques tion9 , You were offer ed free unlimi&d bu s ri dR ing ALL TCAT service hours,on all routes? 22 You Were offered... You were offer ed$50 in Cars ha re cr ed its for tr you may need to take after TCA T service hours? 17 You were offered..- You had free,secure bike parkingiosside your building 2 Othe r 2 You had free.sec— Other, 0 4 a 12 16 20 24 Ques tion 10 No G491— 37 11% 0 49 15% Icurrentlyparkoutside College town,butpayformyown bus pass(or fare). 0 0% Curre out. Y Ques tion 11-Leave my car athome... 1 37 11% 1 2 31 9% 3 5 1% 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 Qu es do n 11-Try to find free overnight parking on the streets nearby... 1 49 15% 1 2 23 7% 3 1 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Question 11 -Other 1 1 0% 1' 2 7 2% 3 13 4% Building Linden 9 3% Linden 312 College 35 10% 312 College ' 717 Buffalo 4 1% - — Cascadill a Hall 73 22% 717 Buffalo 301 College Ave 18 5% Cascadil la!-fall e Ave Apartment 4 1% e 13 4% 301 College Ave on Cour 48 14% 400 College Ave A-.."p' E e Pa rune 37 11 Co aza 36 11% 445- 07 College Ave Coll, vn Center 28 8% Sheldon Court' Colleg Court 17 5% 211-217 n Ave 1 0% Eddygale ParkApa... all 10 3% Collegelown Plaza Collegetown Center Collegetown Caurl 211-217 Linden High Chaparall a 30 m 75, average highest unoccupied average highest percentage 4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 5/3/2012 spots CAPACITY occupanc,occupanc!occupancy TIME 10:30a noon 10:15:00 11a Cayuga 413 387 381 394 393.75 700 43.75% 319 45.57% Dryden 109 82 95 78 91 217 58.06% 172 79.26% Green 185 133 180 139 159.25 400 60.19% 267 66.75% Seneca 158 92 129 123 125.5 350 64.14% 258 73.71% AVERAGE 56.54% 66.32% average highest unoccupied average highest percentage 4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 5/3/2012 spots CAPACITY occupancl occupancl occupancy TIME 6:30p 6p 4:45p 4:30p Cayuga 567 532 458 458 503.75 700 8.04 0 242 34.57% Dryden 129 115 113 89 111.5 217 .62% 128 58.99% Green 256 177 142 142 179.25 55.19% 258 64.50% Seneca 230 224 144 144 185.5 47.00% 206 58.86% AVERAGE 71% 54.23% weekend aver 5/5/2012 unoccupied CAPACITY occupa Cayuga 582 700 16.86% Dryden 110 217 49.31% Green 266 400 33.50% Seneca 265 350 24.29% 30.99% Appendix 3: MAPS ColTegetown (Parking Overld' Zone (CQPOZ) City of Ithaca, JW- 200-5 x C3 ® L14SCA[71 MNt Rr OAK AVE . � T �efr�— '� 475MLFH G "D na d 7 IFS E*Rb ED A CI —i E dEr+6CAILT M 4NAP Pz y a 2 L.i Q `. Q m Q Q ° CDOKi- - Q S] . � El �'F�ac�M3 mil'��jl F�'y]".~ rfr3 1 L_ "--" 6604�f 13 gRr,KARO PL I.j� I_�, Q U LI, 0 ° � t p i- SrArE"O,, r 9ds 1 'y 10 I egand IT wpadj g3 oi� oz (Soundafy En u ridings `Watenvays Ma Mate gene- pftiU County w 69 Datum Map Sourd9-T�rmpktrasp Caunty pVfiel Plmra1r2w9MG Map 1981•2005 i IOGO MBp Proper"by GI.S P mgrem-CRyr oT MFICS.Nv JLILY 2906 Residential Parking Permit Zone R� VtP m m QEp(tBORfJ P'.fE550P w0 ROBLegend CERT PU C LL TRIPHAMMER o PANE u¢ IN RD CENTER DRIVEWAY +~ m sly P( RPCC�LCADING =Q RPPS Streets 0 H ONcry�y= �o RD RPPS Boundary 1 � � ZONE I ED@EC 1 J 'THE THURSTUN AV � o� � R-1 a; R-1 b ~ C HIGHLANDAVE 'P `R CR, FARM DF R-2a; R-2b; R-2c EEK DR NA R RA I Q Roads --- --� a Parcels �EN S E ALPHA a -- - REST HO A DIVEWAY DRRIVEWA P Frrq, r Y RgWP( CAMPUS HILL APARTMENTS RESERVOIR WI DRIVEWAY AVE o RESE R- UNIVERSITY AVE WFSI' OIR qVf WEST (G ETO PKINSS7 �canvus FST m �ORIVErYAY C,9� N 3 z TOWER RD �o E $ 2 ST CITY OF ITHgOq ❑ CI CA EMETAR m. ETARY I S � D SOUTy pJE Y � CITY OF pcPiVGSO EaITt� WEST ITHACA 1N OE AVE e I A* CEMETARY ..EDGEMOOft LA W HILL -9p C"R D�� oHOLLIST LJ — DR , E COURT ST /I ,1 Dnpoupa ,�. EDGE OD PL AMS ST 100 WIL TS GLEN osmurvac PL �I—.y4`I11 I SPRANG 30o IFS A � aoa ST - � J MAPLEAVE APL Ell PL �� 7VE FAIRVIEWSQ aoa RRY RiNEST211 G a 0 �3EN ALLEY CO �'BOOL¢ EL Q`m EGREENST N V PR P ao cuNroN nl % TEST LT 5~ o0 GAP ~ �co JR FPG �YG� y CAST - J oyq N Ly OI ��A7NEPl C GE AT THE T PLANT RIVE c �Nsr VA a A EF'nST EAS 000 5~ �N. 4 DO TIER ANDVIEW CT HAW P 0 2,000 Feet NY State Plane,Central GRS 80 Dal I I I I I +e, Map Source:Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-21 Data Source:City of Ithaca Department of Public Works,21 For More Information Visit: # Map Prepared by:GIS Program,City of Ithaca,NY,July,21 http://www.cityofithaca.org/departments/clerk/resparking.cfm Appendix 4: PROJECT NARRATIVE Executive Summary The Subject Development is located at 301 East State Street in Ithaca, NY, approximately 0.6 miles to Cornell University and 0.9 miles to Ithaca College. It sits at the gateway of the new downtown pedestrian corridor, known as Ithaca Commons. This area is a four-block pedestrian area populated with retail, restaurants and nightlife that is frequented by Ithaca residents, as well as Cornell and IC students. The 0.76 acre site is proposed to be a 11-story building with the first floor containing retail, as well as the leasing office and common area amenities. Possible amenities include a 24-hour fitness center, a flex fitness space,media/game lounge, study rooms and an internet caf6. The city of Ithaca is in central New York and is the county seat of Tompkins County, as well as the largest community in the Ithaca-Tompkins County metropolitan area. This contains the municipalities of the Town of Ithaca, the village of Cayuga Heights, and other towns and villages in Tompkins County). The city of Ithaca is located on the southern shore of Cayuga Lake, in Central New York. Ithaca is home to three institutions of higher learning - Cornell University, Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3). In 2013, the city's estimated population was 30,515, and the metropolitan area had a population of 103,617.1 Of the three institutions of higher learning, two are Tier 1 investable markets and given their proximity to the Subject Site, it can be assumed that this development will attract students from both. The site is within one mile of both campuses and can be accessed via TCAT shuttle routes. Routes 10 & 11 provide express access to both Cornell and Ithaca College, respectively, every 10 minutes from lam to 7pm, seven days a week. Additionally, late night routes also provide coverage from 8:00 to 2:30 am from downtown Ithaca to Cornell Monday through Saturday. Additionally, the site's adjacency to downtown Ithaca provides residents with superb access to the entirety of Ithaca and Tompkins county given downtown Ithaca is the hub in the TCAT's Hub and Spoke accessibility model. Cornell students are able to accesses TCAT via purchasing an OmniRide pass for $200 per year. Ithaca College students are also offered discounted passes for$265 for the year. In fall 2014, Cornell saw its highest enrollment yet,reaching 21,850 which is a 4.4%growth over the past five years, an increase of 911 students. Undergraduates at Cornell account for 66% of the total population, approximately 14,453 students, and graduates number 7,397. All students are attending this institution on a full-time basis. Out-of-state students make up 73% of the total population. Cornell currently houses approximately 7,463 students, which accounts for approximately 51.6% of the undergraduate students and 34.2% of the total population. There is no on-campus housing requirement. Ithaca College enrolls 6,587 students, of which 6,124 are undergraduates. 97% of students are attending IC full-time and 56% come from out of state. IC requires housing through junior year and houses approximately 4,395 students in 27 traditional residence halls and two apartment complexes. This accounts for 71.8%of the undergraduate population and 66.7%of the total enrollment.. The Mayor of Ithaca, Svante Myrick, and Tompkins Legislator, Martha Robertson, recently submitted an article to The Ithaca Voice stating Ithaca's housing crisis2. They state the shortage of rental and for-sale housing is getting worse every year. The lack of housing causes people to live further out in the suburbs, causing traffic congestion, damage to the infrastructure, environmental issues, as well as putting a strain on public transit. The county's 2006 assessment reported that Ithaca would need at least 2,127 new rental units by 2014 to meet the demand. During the 2006-2014 timeframe, only 657 new units have been completed in the city of Ithaca. During that time, Cornell added 2,400 new undergraduate and graduate 1 ProximityOne—Ithaca,NY—Demographic Economic Characteristics. http://proximityone.com/acp/36/3638077.htm 2 Ithaca Voice`Ithaca's housing crisis,economic justice and the path forward',July 1,2015 Campus Advantage 1 Proprietary&Confidential Executive Summary students. What was not accounted for in the 2006 Demand Study, was the 2,400 new undergraduate and graduate students added at Cornell with zero (0) new beds added on-campus. Further compounding the on-going housing shortage will be the estimated 1,300 students projected at Cornell over the next 5 years along with the closing of Maplewood Apartments in the summer of 2016, leaving 480 graduate students without housing.3 This is a net increase of unmet demand of 1,780 students. The off-campus market can be mostly characterized by a collection of smaller apartment communities that offer very few amenities, are not professionally managed and do not resemble traditional purpose- built student product. The overall occupancy for the Ithaca market is strong at 99%, with many of the properties beginning lease up for the following year in early fall due to strong housing demand. The Subject Development will bring a professional management team and residence life program unlike what is currently present in Ithaca. Additionally, it will offer residents a variety of amenities and apartment finishes that will be superior to the rest of the market. According to Nels Bohn, of the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, Ithaca's vacancy rate in 2014 was 1% with rental rates increase of 13% from 2013 to 2014.4 In April 2014, the New York Times named Ithaca America's llth least affordable housing market with residents spending on average 38.6% of their income on housing. This means Ithaca is more expensive than Napa, CA, Honolulu, Hi and Boulder, CO.5 General macroeconomics theory will illustrate that a market whose supply and demand is so stretched,that new supply is needed in order to provide slack in the economy. The off-campus market can be mostly characterized by a collection of smaller apartment communities that offer very few amenities, are not professionally managed and do not resemble traditional purpose- built student product. The overall occupancy for the Ithaca market is strong at 99%, with many of the properties beginning lease up for the following year on October 1 st due to strong housing demand.6 The Subject Development will bring a professional management team and residence life program unlike what is currently present in Ithaca. Additionally, it will offer residents a variety of amenities and apartment finishes that will be superior to the rest of the market. The proposed project presents the Ithaca with the ability to close the 1,470 unit rental housing unit shortage by 232 units,nearly an entire third of the units the market was able to provide over an eight year period. This 15.7% reduction in the shortfall should provide added relief to a severely strained rental housing market. In order to create a diverse living environment and reduce required capture ratios from a student specific property, a varied unit mix is suggested. {Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank} 3 Ithaca Journal—"Cornell Plans closure of Maplewood Park Apartments",May 2015 4 Ithaca Times—"Why is Ithaca one of the least Affordable US Cities",April 2014 5 New York Times—"In Many Cities,Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class." April 2014. 6 Cornell Sun—"In Housing Rush,Cornellians Weather Collegetown Line for Hours." Campus Advantage 2 Proprietary&Confidential Executive Summary Below is the proposed unit mix: % # Unit Types #of Units #of Beds per #of Beds OccPerc Tenants %Students #Students Professional Professional Unit s s Efficiency 50 1 50 95% 48 25% 12 75% 36 1 Bed/1 Bath 30 1 30 95% 29 25% 7 75% 22 2 Bed/1 Bath 40 2 80 95% 76 50% 38 50% 38 2 Bed/2 Bath 20 2 40 95% 38 50% 19 50% 19 3 Bed/2 Bath 6 3 18 95% 17 50% 9 50% 8 4 Bed/4 Bath-Odds 29 4 116 95% 110 100% 110 0% 0 4 Bed/4 Bath-Even 37 4 148 95% 141 100% 141 0% 0 5 Bed/4 Bath 20 5 100 95% 95 100% 95 0% 0 Total 232 2.51 582 95% 554 77.8% 431 22.2% 123 In addition to the mix between students and nonstudents estimated above, it is also contemplated that the project will draw both graduates and undergraduate students as illustrated below. Estimated Classification Make-Up of Student Residents Unit Types #Students %UG #UG %Grad #Grad Efficiency 12 5.0% 1 95.0% 11 1 Bed/1 Bath 7 10.0% 1 90.0% 6 2 Bed/1 Bath 38 25.0% 10 75.0% 28 2 Bed/2 Bath 19 25.0% 5 75.0% 14 3 Bed/2 Bath 9 50.0% 5 50.0% 4 4 Bed/4 Bath-Odds 110 90.0% 99 10.0% 11 4 Bed/4 Bath-Even 141 90.0% 127 10.0% 14 5 Bed/4 Bath 95 95.0% 90 5.0% 5 Total 431 78.4% 338 21.6% 93 The diverse population of undergrads, graduate students and non-students, mitigates capture risk associated with a single demand driver. Given the above residential mix, the capture rates of each target group are as follows: • 338 Undergraduate students represent 3.3% of the off-campus undergraduate student demand (Ithaca College and Cornell only) • 93 Graduate students represent 1.4% of the off-campus graduate student demand (Ithaca College and Cornell only) • 123 Conventional renters (93 units) represent a mere 0.4% of the Ithaca population and marginally more than the 82 housing units delivered on average from 2006-2014. In summary, the combination of the tight housing market, a lack of quality purpose-built housing and the diverse unit mix creating a diverse demand target, creates a high likelihood of success for the proposed development. Campus Advantage 3 Proprietary&Confidential t XdV flOTk IMMS http://nyti.ms/1JVbA3c REAL ESTATE The Millennial Commune By RONDA KAYSEN JULY 31, 2oi5 Applying to live in a Pure House apartment is a little like signing up for an online dating service. Prospective residents answer probing questions like "What are your passions?" and "Tell us your story (Excite us!)." If accepted, tenants live in what the company's promotional materials describe as a "highly curated community of like-minded individuals." In other words, they rent a room in an apartment in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, but with opportunities for social and spiritual growth, like dinner parties and meditation sessions. Pure House is among a handful of businesses that are renting rooms at a premium in exchange for access to amenities, a dormlike atmosphere and an instant community. For a certain set of New Yorkers, often new arrivals to the city with an income but no rental history, Pure House offers something of a reprieve. No credit check. No draconian rules about earning 40 times the monthly rent. No 12-month lease. Instead, they sign a 3o-day membership agreement, paying from $1,600 to $4,000 a month for a room in an apartment to be shared with others who, theoretically, have a similar worldview. The arrangement is a commercial outgrowth of co-living, taking life with roommates to a different level. "We live in a super-disconnected city that has tons and tons of people, but it can feel really lonely here," said Harrison Iuliano, who until last week worked as the programming director of Pure House, which rents out rooms to about 40 people in nine apartments in various buildings around Williamsburg. "Our goal is to make that a nonissue." Russell Jackson relinquished a studio six months ago to live in a six- bedroom Pure House apartment with a rotating cast (he presently has three flat mates). "I'm getting exposure to stuff and things that I would not have had sequestered on the Upper West Side," said Mr. Jackson, a 52-year-old chef. "Laundry services and cleaners and masseuses — all of that is icing," he said. The real perks are the people he has met along the way. "How cool is it that I walk in the door and they ask me, `How's your day?' And I am genuinely interested in hearing from them," said Mr. Jackson, who considers himself the Den Dad to the other tenants, who generally are two or three decades his junior and stay a month or two at a time. Mr. Jackson, who has appeared on "Iron Chef America," also orchestrates Pure House's food events, including its pop-up dinner parties. At one such party, none of the 30 guests knew one another, but most embraced when the night was over, Mr. Jackson recalled. Co-living has gained traction on the West Coast, particularly among the tech crowd in places like Seattle and the Bay Area. Rambling Victorians have been turned into "hacker houses" peopled with young tech entrepreneurs plugged into their laptops like a scene plucked from "The Social Network," the 2010 film about Mark Zuckerberg, a Facebook founder. But in New York, where apartments are generally small and do not immediately lend themselves to communal living, the concept has been slow to catch on. But now, a few companies are assembling bundles of apartments in New York with plans to fill them with cherry-picked inhabitants. Promising "a modern, urban lifestyle that values openness, collaboration and relationship building," Common has entered into agreements with developers to renovate properties in Crown Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant. This fall, it will begin renting 19 rooms at a Crown Heights property. Another company, Stage 3 Properties, is constructing a new co-living building with 18o units to house 400 people, to be completed around 2017. Stage 3 describes its mission as "passionately disrupting the housing industry by reimagining its process, product and price points and curating an all- inclusive cosmopolitan living experience designed for today's creative class." However, its leases will be conventional, 12 months long. But most co-living companies in New York do not own the buildings in which these experiences take place. They play the role of property manager, vetting tenants and collecting security deposits. "We found a group of property owners and investors who are interested in owning real estate but don't want to deal with the management and think that this model of co-living is in huge demand," said Brad Hargreaves, 29, the founder of Common. Of course, like-minded pals have been pooling resources and talents to create ad hoc communities for generations, and that's not even taking into account boardinghouses and residential hotels. But with the advent of the sharing economy, which has brought about a proliferation of companies that make it easy for people to do everything from rent a cubicle in a common work space to share a taxi with strangers, some entrepreneurs are betting co-living has the potential to go mainstream. And as renters warm to the idea of micro-units, co-living might not be much of a stretch, either. Both housing models are structured around shared common areas and amenities. And sometimes the lines are blurred: Bedrooms in Stage 3's apartments are to start at 8o square feet, and come outfitted with space-saving furniture. "There is a very real shift occurring, and I think it has to do with different expectations for privacy and for sharing," said Andrew Till, a vice president of Simon Baron Development, which is partnering with Stage 3 Properties. Many New Yorkers need more flexible housing arrangements, particularly those who come to the city for a brief stint, or do not have the credit history or income requirements needed to qualify for a yearlong lease. "In cities, especially in New York, there has been — and still is — a huge need for exactly this," said Kathy Braddock, a managing director of the New York City office of William Raveis. Critics, however, say the co-living business model could ultimately drive up housing costs, since many of the companies sublease units and charge a premium on the rent. And in some cases, the arrangements could violate city and state housing laws. For example, it is potentially illegal for a tenant of an apartment or a house to have more than two roommates who are not family members. And to limit single-room occupancy hotels, city law prohibits landlords from renting out individual rooms in apartments. "I think it's only a matter of time before the courts recognize them as effectively landlords who are running S.R.O.'s," said David E. Frazer, a Manhattan lawyer who represents tenants. It remains to be seen how successful these companies will ultimately be. Campus, which has co-living spaces in the Bay Area of California and in New York City, announced in June that it is shutting down operations on Aug. 31. Campus is now trying to find housing for residents living in its various properties. Ultimately, the company was "unable to find a way to make Campus into an economically viable business," Tom Currier, 24, a founder, wrote in an email. But for Justin Gerstley, renting out rooms in a six-bedroom, three-bath loft in the financial district has proved lucrative and sustainable. In 2008, he came across a raw 5,000-square-foot space near the South Street Seaport. He signed a five-year lease with the landlord, borrowed $60,00o from his father and renovated it, christening it the Loft. Mr. Gerstley, 30, a May graduate of New York University's Stern School of Business, has been renting out the rooms for seven years, charging up to $2,50o a month for a spacious bedroom with several windows. He declined to say how much he pays for the entire lease, although it is up for renewal in 2016 and the rent could rise. Mr. Gerstley, who lived in the apartment until October, married in February and now lives on the Upper West Side with his wife, Ashley Feinstein Gerstley, 29, a financial adviser. "My wife thinks this is all I should do," said Mr. Gerstley, who is searching for a job. He has considered repeating the co- living model with other properties, but has yet to find another one as well suited to that use as the Loft. The apartment has a large, open living room with a 20400t projection screen, three sofas, a large dining table and a Ping-Pong table. There is also a small gym space and a tiny windowless guest room that residents can reserve for overnight visitors. The Loft is currently home to six single people in their 2os, although one is moving out in September. Getting accepted into the Loft is an informal but challenging process. Prospective tenants are subjected to several lengthy interviews with Mr. Gerstley and the residents, who collectively agree on their next housemate. Usually, the process involves a fair amount of alcohol and a visit to a favored Loft haunt, Fresh Salt, a Beekman Street bar. "We look for friendly people who aren't super weird," said Akshay Nagula, 24, a software engineer who moved into the Loft last October. Mr. Nagula had considered living in a hacker house when he was in the Bay Area, but found it off-putting, describing the household as "eight super- nerdy awkward dudes living together." The Loft is different, he said, with a collegial atmosphere. Residents frequently share meals and even go on group outings, like a geo-tracking expedition that soon devolved into a bar crawl. For Mr. Gerstley, playing the role of landlord comes with its responsibilities. Even though he no longer lives in the apartment, none of the tenants communicate with the real landlord. So when a leak from an upstairs unit damaged Mr. Nagula's computer monitor, Mr. Gerstley had to resolve the problem from Italy, where he was on his honeymoon. "My biggest job is making sure everybody stays happy, because you can get a bedroom in New York for less than $2,500," he said. In order to charge residents top dollar for living with others, bells and whistles are in order. Pure House, for example, offers a premium $4,000-a- month package that includes massage, yoga, fresh fruits and vegetables, personal coaching and wellness counseling. The company's founder, Ryan Fix, 40, sees Pure House as a departure from the standard rental model that binds tenants to a long-term lease with a landlord who does not view the tenant as a consumer who deserves to be wooed. The Pure House website includes images of people gazing at breathtaking vistas with inspirational taglines like "We design experiences that empower our members to thrive." "The traditional landlord-renter model is broken," said Mr. Fix, who launched the company in January. Instead, the company strives to "provide an amazing experience and leave with a hug." The arrangement is not for everyone. "I think it's just better to have a lease and know your roommates," said Anthony F. Dzaba, 34, who has lived in two different Pure House apartments in the past three months and rarely sees his fellow inhabitants. Pure House might strive for a collegial vibe with its residents, avoiding words like "tenant" and "landlord," but ultimately, he said, the relationship is still a traditional one. "After all, you're paying them and when something breaks they come and fix it," said Mr. Dzaba, who plans to look for an apartment with a traditional lease this fall. But perhaps the biggest drawback is the 3o-day lease that many co-living advocates rally behind. It provides residents with virtually no housing security at all. Their rent could rise or they could be displaced with as little as a month's notice. "We are hopeful that many of our members will be able to stay in their homes after the company winds down," Mr. Currier of the disbanding Campus wrote in an email. And as for the traditional tenant who happens to share a building with a co-living apartment, the advent of short-term rentals means living next door to neighbors who stay for a few months, if that long. Some critics argue that month-to-month rental agreements do not amount to a housing collective, even if residents attend social events. "To me, it seems like a bastardization of the idea," said Oriana Leckert, the author of "Brooklyn Spaces: 5o Hubs of Culture and Creativity" (Monacelli Press, 2015). "It's not the real world. The real world isn't where you crash somewhere for 3o days and you get to immerse yourself in a neighborhood and then you leave," said Linda B. Rosenthal, a member of the New York State Assembly who has been critical of short-term rentals. "It's about a few people making a lot of money masquerading as a shared economy." While collective housing has historically often been a way to live more economically, for some of the new adherents your home is not only where you lay your head, but also where you forge business relationships and advance your career 24/7. On a sweltering July evening, about two dozen people gathered around an oversize dining table at Gramercy House, an elegant shared townhouse on East 18th Street. Guests mingled at a potluck dinner that included, among other things, Spam sushi. ("I wouldn't try it,"joked one.) The purpose of the night: networking. "I wanted to live in a place where I could invite people over and we could build something that is bigger than the sum of its parts," said Gillian Morris, a founder of Gramercy House and the travel app Hitlist, as she prepared her signature drink for the party, a mix of rosemary, grapefruit juice, soda and gin. Ms. Morris, 29, a Harvard graduate, rented the apartment in January with two other entrepreneurs to create a household that could double as a place to build a brand. The apartment, two floors connected by a staircase with a handsome curving banister, was listed for $12,50o a month when the three rented it. The residents (who now number four) host brunches, dinners and a meditation class, all with the intent of enlarging their social sphere. "We're willing to give up living alone for a few years because we define privacy differently," said Melissa Kwan, 32, a founder of the real estate app Spacio and of Gramercy House, who hopes that the connections she makes there will help her find investors in her fledgling company. "I think as an entrepreneur, it's not only motivating, but necessary for you to constantly surround yourself with these kinds of people." For weekly email updates on residential real estate news, sign up here. Follow us on Twitter: @nytrealestate. A version of this article appears in print on August 2, 2015, on page RE1 of the New York edition with the headline: Rooms With a Viewpoint. ©2015 The New York Times Company Forbes http://onforb.es/is82NHu 'wuig�.ed�Yc�ng Gnvrr�bn.❑i31Duln-- Live gfree from,.)high feesFin with Vanguard- s . r Trulia Contributor • Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. LIFESTYLE 10/07/2014 @ 9:3OAM 12,373 views Why Millennials Love Renting With Millennials facing an unemployment rate of more than 8%and$1 trillion in student loan debt,they're increasingly renting instead of buying homes. In fact,the true homeownership rate for 18-34 year olds has fallen to a new low: 13.2%. But finances aren't the only reason for the dip in homeownership.Millennials are recognizing the many benefits of renting— including reasons that have nothing to do with money. 1. Love of Amenities Many apartment buildings feature free amenities that would come at a significant cost for homeowners.These range from obviously visible perks like electric car charging ports,gyms,and movie screening rooms,to the subtle,such as concierge service and cell phone reception in all areas of the building,including the underground garage—a boon to Millennials,many of whom don't have landlines. 2. Love of Community Millennials are drawn to the community and shared spaces in apartment buildings.With limited budgets in urban locales,including places where studio apartments can be smaller than 400 square feet,younger renters are enjoying common kitchens or coffee bars,libraries,and rec rooms. Plus,there's the love of community outside of the building itself.Renting a downtown apartment allows for close proximity to enjoy culture and nightlife without having to move to the suburbs— even if they could afford a house in a more residential neighborhood. But if Millennials DO want to try living in a suburban neighborhood to get to know that community before making a commitment to buy,renting is always an option (see the next reason...). 1 r 3. Love of Flexibility Many see buying a single-family home as the path to forever escaping noisy neighbors on the other side of a wall or ceiling,but in truth, renting provides much more flexibility to leave behind troublesome places.A nuisance who moves in halfway into a year-long lease becomes a memory in months; one who moves next door halfway into a 15-year mortgage can feel like a problem for life. Home, Sweet Rental: An eBook From Forbes Homeownership isn't all it's cracked up to be.Learn how to find the perfect rental and negotiate a lease that meets your needs. The ultimate benefit of renting may arise from the flexibility of leaving for any reason,especially career reasons.Millennials tend to change jobs three times more often than their older counterparts and stay with the same employer for just three years on average,according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics.Renting instead of buying makes transferring to a new or better job much simpler. Some leases may even include a termination clause that specifies acceptable reasons for early termination,such as a job transfer that is more than 50 miles away.In some cases,the tenant may not be liable for any payment if the unit is re-rented within a particular time period. 4. Love of Convenience There's a lot of work that goes into maintaining your own home—yard work,standard maintenance and repairs,and important upgrades. Plus,if something major like a furnace breaks,it's on you. Renters are able to keep home maintenance out of their budgets,and out of their weekend to-do lists.For Millennials with active lifestyles,having fewer things to do around the house can have a huge upside. Millennials—what are other reasons you love renting?Tell us! RECOMMENDED BY FORBES NFL Team Values 2015 6 Ways To Win At Office Politics This article is available online at:http://onforb.es/1 s82NHu 2015 Forbes.com LLCTm All Rights Reserved 3495 Winton Place SRF Building E, Suite 110 Rochester, NY 14623 �+� ASSOCIATES W W W.S R F A . NET phone 585.272.4660 Transportation Engineering&Planning Consultants fax 585.272.4662 September 16, 2015 RE: State Street Triangle, Aurora Street and MILK Jr. Street, City of Ithaca, NY Transportation Demand Management Plan Below are the supporting narratives for the Impacts on Transportation in support of the FEAR Transportation Impact Study Revised trip generation estimates were used for the Traffic Impact Study submitted in August 2015. These are a revision from the Traffic Assessment prepared in June 2015. The revised estimates refer to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data for the residential and commercial land uses. These estimates also take into account the revised trip generation reduction credits (e.g., transit, pedestrian, bicycle) used for the initial Traffic Assessment submitted in June 2015. Based on the Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Project, the existing transportation system can accommodate the added vehicle trips without significant adverse impacts to the study area intersections. As well, measurements of the existing sidewalk widths in areas with more than likely moderate to high levels of pedestrian activity throughout the Ithaca CBD reveal that five feet is standard, with minimum widths of six feet along Green Street nearby City Hall and along Seneca Street. The Commons has clear pedestrian zone widths of ten to twelve feet. Existing data and analysis should be presented from the concerned parties that allege the existing transportation facilities, including the pedestrian and bicycle facilities,are operating at capacity and will therefore be adversely impacted as a result of the Proposed Project. The existing 3 City owned and operated parking garages are each no greater than 0.25 mile, which on average takes 6 minutes to walk, are currently not operating at capacity. The expected increase in residents in the Project with vehicles would be able to be accommodated in these garages. Frank Nagy has verbally confirmed this as of September 8, 2015. The Proposed Project is providing 27 bicycle parking spaces. The elevators should be large enough to fit a standard sized bicycle and accompanying person. Parking Demand The users of the building would have varying parking needs that range from short-term to long-term and storage. It is estimated approximately 20 percent of the proposed residential component will require long-term parking with the remaining designated for short-term parking and guests. It is anticipated that retail customers who arrive by personal vehicle will predominately require short- term parking (less than 2 hours), while retail employees and building staff who arrive by personal vehicle will require long-term parking. Residents who have a vehicle that they do not need to access regularly will have the option of parking in an off-site storage lot. Re: State Street Triangle, City of Ithaca, NY September 16, 2015 Transportation Demand Management Plan SRF Associates completed a Traffic Impact Study on August 14, 2015 for the State Street Triangle project. Using the Shared Parking Model, a total of 283 parking spaces are needed. A total of 57 parking spaces are required for customers, seven parking spaces for employees (commercial),and 219 parking spaces are reserved for residents. A car ownership studied prepared in 2012 by the Upstate Research Group indicates that based on the residential component alone, approximately 191 parking spaces are required. It can be estimated that a range of 191 to 219 parking spaces are required by residents, The 219 parking spaces use a national standard (Urban Land Institute and ITE), and can therefore be seen as more conservative estimation. The parking capacity for the proposed project will be provided primarily in the Cayuga Street Parking Garage via 250 reserved parking spaces. The 27 bicycle parking spaces provided on-site may reduce the need for vehicle parking spaces. Additionally, there were will be two to three carshare parking spaces which can equate to a reduction of approximately 15 personal automobiles per carshare vehicle. Factors such as carsharing, demographics, nearby land use mix, employment density, transit accessibility, et al have the ability to affect parking demand and optimal parking supply.Truck deliveries are planned on-site during off-peak hours. The availability of parking is discussed in the following section. Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) This section expands on the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) strategies described in the August 2015 TIS in an effort to highlight the importance of developing a TDMP to decrease the dependence on personal automobile ownership and usage, and to create a more walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented development within the heart of downtown Ithaca. A TDMP is the application of strategies and policies to reduce Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel demand, or to redistribute this demand in space or in time. By definition, TDMP includes various strategies that produce a more efficient use of transportation resources and increase the efficiency of a transportation system. TDMP programs have many potential benefits. They can reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled by promoting alternatives to driving alone. Fewer vehicle miles traveled results in less ozone pollution. Employers can use TDMP programs to reduce overhead costs, enhance productivity and reduce employee turnover. TDMP programs can also improve the use of public transit services, bikeways, sidewalks and carpool lanes by educating users about their travel options and coordinating trips between users with similar trip patterns. Implementing an effective TDMP program may reduce the required number of parking spaces for a project and/or eliminate the need to consider building costly multi-story parking structures. Table I summarizes some of the benefits that can be realized from an effective TDMP program. TABLE 1: BENEFITS OF TDMP PROGRAMS FRoad ENEFIT DESCRIPTION tion Reduction Reduces traffic congestion delays and associated costs. Parking Savings Reduces road and parking facility costs. umer SavingsHelps consumers save money by reducing their need to own and operate motor vehicles. sport Choice Improved travel options, particularly for non-drivers. oad Safety Reduced crash risk �7 RF Page 2 of 5 L0r1]WWW.SRF A.NET Tm PortanuErsyivenrsg&P!©mvrzg Cn�rw Re: State Street Triangle, City of Ithaca, NY September 16, 2015 Transportation Demand Management Plan Environmental Protection Reduced air, noise and water pollution, wildlife crashes and other types of environmental damages. Supports strategic land use planning objectives, such as reduced Efficient Land Use sprawl, urban redevelopment and reduced habitat fragmentation. Community Livability Improved local environmental quality and community cohesion. Supports a community's economic objectives, such as increased Economic development productivity, employment, wealth, property values and tax revenues. Physical Fitness and Health Improved public fitness and health due to more physical activity, usually through increased daily walking and cycling. The following TDMP strategies are recommended for consideration and implementation in connection with the proposed State Street Triangle: Transit Coordination—Continued coordination with TCAT on transit ridership and marketing the nearby routes will boost ridership through increased awareness coupled with improved service. Carpooling—Carpooling will be encouraged by providing incentives and other services such as ride- matching using local services like vRide (www.vride.com via http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/itctc). Transportation Alternatives Information — Bus schedules, walking and bicycling maps, neighborhood and on-site wayfinding will be made readily available. Location and Quantity of Bicycle Parking Spaces — The proposed project will include convenient bicycle parking locations in clear sight of access points into the building, safe and secure longer-term storage within parking areas, and sufficient number of bicycle parking spaces that encourage a greater number and demographic of residents, employees, and visitors to utilize bicycling as a means of transportation. Parking for 27 bicycles will be provided. Carshare—The project site will have two to three carshare parking spaces to encourage lower rates of personal automobile ownership and reduce parking demand. This will be coordinated locally through Ithaca Carshare. Although carshare is not typically used for commuting purposes, carshare can help reduce the dependency on vehicle ownership (one carsharing vehicle replaces approximately 15.3 privately owned vehicles, based on data provided by Ithaca Carshare) and,thus, reduces the need for on-site parking. Carshare can be viewed as an amenity and incentive to live and work in the Proposed Project. This supports the County's Comprehensive Plan and goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease dependency on cars. Coordination with the nearby Colleges/Universities — A successful relationship between the proposed project and the nearby education institutions of Ithaca College and Cornell University can affect the trip generation rates and parking demand for the proposed project.Transportation services like a dedicated shuttle may encourage lower rates of SOV usage. The Price of Parking— Parking spaces that are typically included in building and rental costs will be reviewed, and "unbundled" parking, paid as a separate item will be considered. L S RF Page 3 of 5 ASSATES W W SR A.NE W W W.SRFA.NET Tm PortanuErsyivenrsg&P!©mvrzg Cn�rw Re: State Street Triangle, City of Ithaca, NY September 16, 2015 Transportation Demand Management Plan Other strategies include reducing the availability of on-site parking and encouraging shared parking (the shared parking concept builds upon the assumption that land uses in a mixed use development often do not share the same peak demand period, so spaces can be shared between the different land uses during different peak periods) can begin to change commuter patterns and mode choice. Seattle, Washington recently has been presented with a proposal to city council to offer tenants of new developments alternative transportation options, such as transit passes and car share memberships, in place of providing parking spots (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplanning/2015parkingreport.pdf). A Four-Point Parking Program is being created for residents with private vehicles. The plan is being created in conjunction with the City of Ithaca's parking facilities and will utilize vacant parking spaces in existing City garages and surface lots. It is conservatively anticipated that up to 40% of the residents may have personal vehicles. • Cayuga Garage - Campus Advantage is in the process of seeking a parking agreement with the non-profit ownership entity for Cayuga Garage to utilize vacant spaces in the upper levels of the garage. There are over 300 vacant parking spaces in the garage and parking revenues from residents of the project will help reduce the$960,000 in annual public subsidies currently needed to fund the garage debt. • Seneca Garage—Approximately 100 vacant spaces have been identified by City parking officials that could be reserved by residents of the State Street Triangle Project. • Green Street Garage —There are approximately 75 underutilized spaces in the Green Street Garage which is within a 2-3 minute walk from the site. • Satellite Parking Lots — Surface parking lots near the Cornell campus and others that are in the planning stage elsewhere throughout the City will be available for those residents that primarily use their vehicles on weekends and holidays. The lots can be easily accessed via public transit. Bike Share — A micro bike share system that is developed for the proposed State Street Triangle Project provides additional public transportation options and can encourage more transit ridership. A bike share system can offer mobility, economic, health, safety, and quality of life benefits. The system is extremely useful for short, spontaneous or planned trips of 30 minutes or less. Most bike share systems offer free rides for the first 30-60 minutes of the ride (a per day/month/year fee is attached to the program). Bike share systems come in the form of smart docks or smart bikes. Additionally, exploration of electric assisted bicycles can promote increased bicycle usage to help deal with the challenging topography that is well known around the City and Town of Ithaca. However, at the time of writing, electric assisted bicycles are not legal in New York State. The Project Team has initiated discussions with a national bike share provider to provide service upon completion of the Proposed Project. The proposed State Street Triangle development will take advantage of the City's existing multi-modal transportation system, as well as augment it through an improved interface with the public realm. Developing a mixed-use project of this nature will help meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, enhance the pedestrian and bicycle experience, and further activate an historic part of downtown Ithaca. �7 RF Page 4 of 5 ASSOCIATES W W W.SRFA.NET Trn PortanuErsyivenrsg&P!©mvrzg Cn�rw Re: State Street Triangle, City of Ithaca, NY September 16, 2015 Transportation Demand Management Plan The existing transportation system has been inventoried and documented, as well as the analysis of future transportation impacts, in the August 2015 TIS. The anticipated needs of automobile users will be accommodated via the existing roadway network and specified off-site parking areas. Pedestrians will be accommodated via the existing sidewalk network found throughout downtown Ithaca and the linkages to further reaching destinations, such as Cornell University. Additionally, the expanded sidewalk along the Proposed Project's frontage will offer better pedestrian circulation in and around the site. On-site bicycle parking will offer residents and visitors an alternative mode of transportation travelling to the site. Move-in/-out coordination should be organized utilizing the proposed on-site loading area. The on- street parking spaces located nearby the Project Site may also be utilized when residents are moving in/out in coordination with City. A Street Occupancy Permit — like those utilized in Boston, for example (http://www.cityofboston.gov/streetoccupancy/) — can be obtained for those needing to utilize the public way as means to move-in/-out of their residences. If you have any comments or questions concerning these materials, or require any additional information, please contact our office. Very truly yours, SRF&Associates 4L�� Stephen R. Ferranti, P.E., PTOE Principal SRF/dIk SAProjects\2015\35027 Cornell Residental Mixed Use State St\Report\State Street Triangle Part 3 FEAF Letter 09.16.15.docx r1]WWW S RF Page 5 of 5 ASSOCIATES .SRF A.NET Tm PortanuErsyivenrsg&P!©mvrzg Cn�rw STATE STREET TRIANGLE 4 � e',V li � •�, F `�` 1 .., a . •y * 7 I q4^ • t F 1R d ' I � I 4� 1 M E NEW RESIDENCES IN DOWNTOWN , ITHACA PLANNING BOARD- UPDATED SITE PLAN SUBMISSION: SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 LIST OF DRAWINGS P2-4 Proposed Site Plans P5-1 6 Proposed Building: Perspectives + Precedent Images P1 7-20 Proposed Building: Elevations P21 Proposed Building: Section + Solar Diagram ca WHITHAM STREAM CAMPUS T. G . MILLER, P. C . PLANNING & DESIGN. I [C COLLABORATIVE I�' �� � ��I� �— C(1RSiRUCTI�1� E N C I N E E A S A N D S U R V E Y O R S A BUILDING BUILDING No. 314-320 No. 101-111 EAST STATE STREET BRICK BUILDING NORTH AURORA STREET £ No. 326-330 smccr LING (} EAST STATE STREET ® ®� ® ® vw•r ma o� EAST STATE STREET a P.O.B. WO F7 TITLE INFORMATION & •s �'/ 51G� TREBLOC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEED BOOK 548 PAGE 991 TAX MAP NO.69-4-1 AREA-0.759 ACRES p� G Gp? R1uL �1 ewnu�mnio / / 44' / P / CONCRETE A. GATEWAY v 1 GATEWAY COMMONS BUILDING NO.311 EAST STATE STREET (6 STORY BRICK BUILDING) a � � NEW PHALT PAVEMENT `�A5 NEW DROP CUR _ — CONCRETE WALK QUARY LOCK REfAR NG WALL ii'� NEW A'SPHAI R QEMENT �E " NE"I`6P CURB ASPHALT PATH / NpN CONCRETE'VAt SIX MILE CREEK o September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED SITE PLAN - EXISTING SIDEWALKS T. G . MILLER, P. C. Ithaca, NY 1 "=40'-0" svxvevwes Page 2 - + R • Evr�R WN Yl � �.-..�vd �'' C $ �uv'•' �- •. � ®'.''- i.ri,�,` T_�} IJ3 tom'.. �f. •. -NEW STRiPEO CROSSWALK AND STOP BAR (TYP OF 2) EAST STA'l'I'.' STREET +�..� NEW U',.f PAVERS (TYP) r GRAN'TE CURB (TYP) r {N-'N Aca...h L( aAVE.M'.:NT o • -M NEW CURB RAMP I ty} ., ,' e3}r ',. r s� � + /-NEW STkIPEID ISLAND in o 12'-11.25• r 47'-3.5 TfQN -r�r COMPANY 14 14.25"br24 -4-' NEW O NCRL I L S-Uk jK (RkS sFE=a2C.OQ Yh •'NEW CONCRETE WALK NEW UNIT PA'ERS (TYP) :.: . .. .. NEW AC, AL! PA'JfMr NT-. . ,�.. W GROP CURS +. J� �r / - ` "" "`�'"• I GRfuN IT CURB (TYP) "J G`e, y - ✓ •., �,°`� /�~ w� NEW D"Op C �L3 3Y EW CONCR E SIDEWALK- l .."° NE'N ASP- L7 PAVEMENT Asuw*rxin �W CONCRETE WALK ~~ MILE CREEK 53x -0"ARRY '31_ OCK ETAINJNG 'NAL September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH EXISTING CONDITION + DIMENSIONS � WHITHAM T. G . MILLER: P. C. Ithaca, NY 1 "=40'-0" COLLABORATIVE STREAM PLANN[NG n D 1c. I[(- 5L'kVCYc1RY Page 3 SPA ESN° u kf i C ypULT �� �MNINB �� F 5k 0 F NEW STRIPED CROSSWALK ... AND STOP BAR (TYR OF 2) EAST STATE STREET w NEW UNIT PAVERS (TYP) < "II z NEW GRANITE CURB (TYP) Q NEW TREE GRATES AND 0 w— �U NEW CURB RAMP NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT NEW STRIPED ISLAND P.o.B. .eREr wuK . �SuxB e o � Il YAP5// ® ..F©NCkEtE WALK,:•. e •A R MATION NT COMPANY PAGE 991 g-4-1 NEW ONCRETE SIDE LK ORES FFE=420.00 �. e CONCFETE WALH NEW CONCRETE WALK NEW UNIT PA ERS (TYP) ��� 9 At / 411 P�P�� 5� NEW AS ALT PAVEMENT Y W DROP CURB coNcrtErE waLK / �5P�EE` xc war mufx GRANT CURB (TYP) / �c6' ° NEW ROP C k# EW C)NCR E SIDEWALK NEW ASP ALT PAVEMENT NSW CONCRETE WALK CREEK / six MILE 0 ARRY BLOCK pe\, �'. ETAINING WALL Q September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED SITE PLAN - EXTENDED SIDEWALKS �STREAM 4)WHITHAM T• G - MILLER, P. C. Ithaca NY 1 "=40,-0„ ,,I., I[ l3. !LC f COLLABORATIVE r.. r.a:i<s a.u s m x v e r cr n g Page 4 Changes to Building and Tabulations Corner Section- 1 1 stories to 10 stories State Street Section- 11 stories to 8 stories; 1 1 stories to 9 stories From 288,845 GSF to +/- 216,434 GSF From 240 units to 232 units From 620 bedrooms to 582 bedrooms - - -- r-L p� If Lill" r--' „,- z I III r"�1' � ;�} -•.�._-, . 3 Ir r 1 dF f Imo,���� :��t,�• VI•' ,�, I� -'p''r ,z�..� ' STATE STREET TRIANGLE u �41, September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING Ithaca, NY STATE - AURORA PERSPECTIVE STREAM COLLABORATIVE Page 5 4 il - �,. - ,',' Y '� m� �1 1� �I�I I�� —L�,�� 1 I������r'rhr� ` ti:� � ,�,ll �ltit�,,,r,lrlwi� (1�1P�r■rA■e _1 m 11 -- 11y WIN 1■ u11 oil��;I� q , p C �1 1■ �1 IM 1 , vIZ- . fi� ■ C ": �` a A• 4 a r i w� --n IF, �ti I II � - -- , -- - - -- -- j I al �l I Eff T7 .—A JL 'Iyl -4 f ff j 4 A ------ ------- gum 1 4- rP�l IN! eq, I Ll September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING Ithaca, NY NORTH PERSPECTIVE STREAMCOLLABORATIVE Page 7 JL 7Z - I I J I a .. f I I September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING Ithaca, NY EAST PERSPECTIVE STREAM COLLABORATIVE Page 8 EAST PERSPECTIVE - -'' .-per � •�,v i .,.� 0 - September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING - PRECEDENTS Ithaca, NY BUILDINGS 1 + 6 STREAM COLLABORATIVE Page 9 j l IL III A low a 142 P -11 j-7i 1 .s mu."t Emmm ��� i� rl i► 1 r � � 1� ■ ■ �� �� � - NORTH PERSPECTIVE STATE STREET TRIANGLE r � r � ill 2 11 PROPOSED EAM Ithaca, NY BUILDING 2 COLLABORATIVE P 10 age I I . 1 1 ■ ►. � , r j M 1 1 , NORTH September STREETSTATE TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING PRECEDENTS STREAM Ithaca, NY BUILDING 3 COLLABORATIVE t IQ [ W lYll I�- I TRIANGLESTATE STREET PROPOSED a � i l ll ,l 11 11„1.1 Ilil�lllillll� �I l� �'' a I� ■I 1. 1■ ■I II 1 1 ( � 1 1 I I I la_ _ - -�.,. � _ � - - 'F' T I• ■I � I■ ■I a I� I 1 �I� � � � . � � le ■I � 1■ ■1 . i .. r WEST PERSPECTIVE September 1 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING BUILDINGIthaca, NY 5 COLLABORATIVE ■i I� f t NORTH September 1 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING - PRECEDENTS BUILDINGSTREAM Ithaca, NY COLLABORATIVE - fol - - �ff �! m law IN ■ �C i ■ - m r ��f - ■ IT - [, 1 1 r■,■ �,f at 1 1 � - c• - 1 ' y, xr .J n i _ �" io �� ■ ■�, _ «,i Now h oil IN r r a _x - . is '_ .._ •..'., ^.. � - ' � M � 8 i s u, Y r. R 414�4. IMEMMMMMM '. 1�_ i1 ■�■� Imo., I 1 1 1�11�1�111�JI 1117 IN -1101moviol I A mill LEEMM ON M! ml �MMMN 1� �� �� �� = -�■ `. HIM Mm ,PUMA III r L � N �■ I�� ■ im im I■ IC �� ■ ■ . m ■. � �■ ■ ��r � r■ � ILA ill a] oil �1 M ilili.111.11'Flii " llo I low mmi In 11111 11111= �_ � _������I����M�ui��� ��. � ��, � 1 �a '� is ,1 �1 �1 �1 �I:I■I , �° �° � v 31 INK IJEA wm + r i Y AR, . =S ■MI . ... . . ... . . . ... . . ... . ■ ■ INN I r� ��1 1 I1�1�1 di 1 son Ii11 IIi1■i■1 1■i■ IN i■■I■1 Ilil1i11 Il llllilllillllill I 1■ IN l it li i l l i LA 1 i I li 01 10 i it II � . I � IN a IN IS IN I a s IN J J :-:: _ _ _ _ 1 ■ ■ �■ ■ _ 1s: ■ 1�1 . ■ 1�1 ■ _ m to 1�1 � ■ 1�1 ■ � 1111 1� 1 i■sue I ■ 1 1 ■ ■ 1 1 ■ i i i 1 1 ■ ■ 1 1 �I �I I ieloon I ■■■ ■® � 1.:■:i 1 I ■ I ■ ■ I ■ I� ■ill I,1 ■ ■IN I,1 ■ �I �I u■■■ io■ 1■I 1No IN 1 E. IN IN IN lions INN 'm:■ I 111 11 1 1 1 1 i it it I Moon u son mini IMF ONE IF ■IN ■ o ■ 1 r y r ., ■ ■ ■ ■ E.■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ME ` ■` ■ - MEE - M- looli! ! ! ! ! !! ! ■ I I I I ■ • • • ■ ■ s• • ■ •III•III III_III_III■I■I•IM, 11'-Ell 1 0 I f� Milli ME �i■ ■ I I LEEC I� II I� 0 0 ■❑ ❑■ IN ili - ,■ ; - Eft milli 01111 INN IN IRS 0 0 In ■■Emil ■ . .■ M IN IN III Iliait I 1 1i 1 1 i i iEll■ ■■■ - - .■ ■ Ell • Sol Ilk- F - - - - - � � ,it - - ��' "�{,� �,, ��k ` } � ~ ' � ® !■ `) ". IIIIIIIIIIIIIIISAWU i AL u-A&MARm— �■ ■■■■■■■ ■ 1 � t . w g 1 1 •I•f_■�L•Io n Elmso 1110■I�•I•I••III _•_•_•_•_•_. . �� ■■. 111 . ■ �1,1■■ ■ �■�■�■�■�■C■��■ ■I_I_LII��I■Ill�la��ll��� i i i i i o ■ a ■ ■ ■ r■ ■I 1 ■ I�1 ■ ICI ■ ® ■ ■�1 ■ �■ ■ IN1! .11 11■1�11 11_ �� �� , ■ ■ ■ I I ■ ■ I I ■ ■ ■ ■ im it I t ■ 1 ■ ■■■�1 ■ ■ ■ 1 1 ■ ■ ■i i� �i i i ■ i ® Ili i l I i i w ® ■ l i i i 1 � 11011 1Elm 11 iPEI ° ii ii I 1� ■ � ICI � � [11 ■ � ■ ■ ��1 � � � �1 �IIILL � ■ ;� 1 1 ■ ■ :�i_ ° i� ii i_ i ■ � �� � � c■ N N IIIIIIII m 111- m- I I kL a a © ■ ■ �® ■ ■ rVIIIS ■ _i i ii ■ ■ ■�1 ■ 1�1 ii ii 1111or N J F 1 0 mill Nor Mai I I WES r 1 1 `rG ��NrERso o� LST/C ESN &00N FT__]- ----------- ........ MENNEN_ 0 0 z + - o + �Y Co IIIIIII � , III! . - y. GREEN STREET STATE/MLK STREET SENECA WAY September 17, 2015 STATE STREET TRIANGLE PROPOSED BUILDING - NORTH-SOUTH CROSS SECTION Ithaca, NY 1 "=40'-0" COLLABORATIVE STREAM Page 21 TeAt 'DZ CONSOLIDATED AREA TRANSIT September 17, 2015 Mr. Scott Whitham Tompkins Consolidated Whitham Planning & Design, LLC Area Transit,Inc. 737 Willow Avenue 123 S. Cayuga Street, Suite 201 Ithaca,NY 14850-3214 Ithaca,NY 14850 Phone:607 277-9388 TDD/T[Y:607 277-9766 Dear Mr. Whitham, Fax:607 277-9551 E-mail:tcat@tcatmail.com Web:www.tcatbus.com This letter is in regard to your request to comment on the ability of TCAT to accommodate additional ridership expected to be generated by the proposed State Street Triangle development during peak travel periods. The assessment of the impact of the proposed development on TCAT makes use of data provided to TCAT within the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed State Street Triangle Development prepared in August 2015 by SRF Associates, as well as TCAT's internal data, specifically average passenger boarding counts per route and per trip, and the results from a recent study to measure the location and frequency of instances when a TCAT trip could not accept additional passengers due to having reached the allowed on-board passenger limit(full bus survey). First, I might comment that few locations beyond that of the proposed project are better situated to access the range of community destinations accessible by the TCAT network, enjoying not just the most direct trip possible, but also the greatest service frequency and hours of service per day that the system has to offer. While the Traffic Impact Study counts six TCAT bus stops within '/4 mile of the project site, it should be noted that two of these, namely Green Street Station and Seneca Street Station, collectively represent TCAT's primary downtown transfer facility and are situated nearly equidistantly from the project site. Nearly all transit trips in the system begin, end, or pass through one of these two stops; the only routes in the system that do not serve either of them are Cornell campus shuttle routes. Weekday service at these locations begins at 6:00am and service to and from Ithaca College, Collegetown, and Cornell runs until approximately 2:30am six nights per week. Service to and from Collegetown and Cornell is as frequent as every six minutes during the AM peak travel period. I am pleased to report that, under the assumption of the continuation of current service levels, TCAT is in a good position to accommodate projected ridership during peak travel periods from the proposed project. Querying average outbound ridership totals on all trips of all routes departing Green St. and Seneca St. stations between 8:00am—9:00am and 4:30pm—5:30pm, even conservatively assuming that all passengers travel from route endpoint to endpoint, which is typically not the case, and even conservatively assuming that all passengers projected in Table 1 of the Traffic Impact Study to utilize transit were to choose to ride the same trip, rather than disperse themselves over the many trips on various routes during the peak travel periods,the projected additional ridership would not cause the total average trip ridership to exceed the capacity of a bus in any case. Examining trips from the"full bus survey," which gives a clearer indication of how often certain trips deviate from average ridership figures such that they occasionally reach capacity, it was observed that infrequent trips of Route 10 and Route 30 do reach capacity on particularly high ridership days,typically not from riders boarding downtown, but rather further down the line at stops located near Cornell's campus. Particularly given that transit trips projected to originate from the proposed State Street Triangle development are unlikely to all select these exact trips, it is unlikely that the projected additional ridership would more than negligibly exacerbate the frequency or severity of these capacity issues. Moreover,the identified trips were all on high-frequency routes;therefore, any passengers unable to board their desired trip would be accommodated by the next trip a mere few minutes later. In closing, it is my view that developments such as the proposed State Street Triangle, both in scale and in character,facilitate efficient utilization of public transit and other alternative travel modes. With the hub of its transit network immediately adjacent to the proposed project site,TCAT is in good position to accommodate transit passengers traveling to and from State Street Triangle. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Doug Swarts Service Development Manager Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. Downtown Parking Future Capacity Analysis 9/15/2015 Seneca Garage Spaces Occupied Spaces Available Number % Number % Total Number of Spaces in Garage 451 Daytime 325 72% 126 28% Evening 167 37% 284 63% Projected Seneca Future Users Canopy Hotel 123 12 Daytime 337 75% 114 25% 123 Evening 290 64% 161 36% Tompkins Trust-Essential Seneca Permits (Currently 45, 15 additional planned-60 total) 15 15 Daytime 352 78% 99 22% 0 Evening 290 161 *Includes 100 spaces under contract to the Hilton Garden Inn **Assumes 100% hotel occupancy with one car/room State Street Triangle Project 50 50 Daytime 402 89% 49 11% 50 Evening 340 75% 111 25% Seneca Garage Total Projected Occupancy Daytime Spaces Occupied 402 Daytime Spaces Available 49 Evening Spaces Occupied 340 Evening Spaces Available 111 Spaces Occupied Spaces Available Number % Number % Total Number of Spaces in Garage 385 Daytime 236 61% 149 39% Evening 173 45% 212 55% Projected Future Users Marriott Hotel* 144 14 Daytime 250 65% 135 35% 144 Evening 317 82% 68 18% Fingerlakes School of Massage 45 45 Daytime 295 77% 90 23% 0 Evening 250 65% 134.6 35% *Assumes 100%Occupancy lcar/room) State Street Triangle Project 50 50 Daytime 345 90% 40 10% 50 Evening 345 90% 39.6 10% Tompkins Trust-Essential Seneca Permits (Currently 45, 16 additional planned-61 total) 16 16 Daytime 361 80% 24 6% 0 Evening 345 39.6 10% Green Garage Total Projected Occupancy Daytime Spaces Occupied 361 Daytime Spaces Available 24 Evening Spaces Occupied 345 Evening Spaces Available 40 Cayuga Garage Spaces Occupied Spaces Available Number % Number % Total Number of Spaces in Garage 684 Daytime 342 50% 342 50% Evening 287 42% 397 58% Projected Future Users Cayuga Place II 52.65 30 Daytime 372 54% 312 46% 52.65 Evening 340 50% 344 50% Tompkins Trust (requesting 171 new permits-65 in Seneca) 129 129 Daytime 501 73% 183 27% Evening 340 50% 344.35 50% Harold Square*** 101 88 Daytime 589 86% 95 14% 101 Evening 440 64% 243.73 36% State Street Triangle Project 148 148 Daytime 737 108% -53 -8% 148 Evening 588 86% 95.73 14% Cayuga Garage Total Projected Occupancy Daytime Spaces Occupied 737 Daytime Spaces Available (53) Evening Spaces Occupied 588 Evening Spaces Available 96 'Parking Demand units Parking Demand Rate Harold Square residential (ITE Urban 86 1.17 101 evening mid rise apartment 1.17)\ 20 daytime office (SF) 14,460 4.00 57.84 daytime 0 evening retail (SF) 11,410 0.89 10.15 daytime Parking Summary Supply Occupied Spaces at Full Available Spaces daytime evening daytime evening Seneca Garage 451 352 290 99 161 Green Garage 385 295 250.4 90 134.6 Cayuga Garage 6841 737 588.27 -53 95.73 Total Downtown Garage Parking Total Supply Total Projected Occupied Spaces Total Available spaces 1520 Daytime 1501 Daytime 19 Evening 1274 Evening 246 Source: Frank Nagy, City Director of Parking e ■ _ nmj ' r• i J t'G September 16,2015 gIIT0ItIO° ITRAOA 1966 ° Planning and Development Board i I.....,.. 1d..............1.,d„„...,..d.m.,,,....... ,, City Hall .a..... .......... hud.r.,c...,,d 108 E. Green Street, Yd Floor .................°d,..�.„ Ithaca,NY 14850 Re: State Street Triangle Project Dear Planning and Development Board members: Historic Ithaca wishes to comment on the proposed State Street Triangle Project by developer Campus Advantage. We previously submitted two letters to the Planning Board and have attended public meetings held at City Hall to voice our concerns. We also attended the developers' public meeting held at Coltivare on September 10". Although Campus Advantage has presented a revised proposal for their project,significant issues remain with this version of their design. IS The changes are mainly focused on the articulation of the exterior elevations into what they call"six distinct buildings."These changes do not alter the fact that the plan of the building and its overall mass and composition remain largely the same. The proposed project is still one of a troubling size and scale without any major reductions. • Solar access and visual concerns are still present in this design. Of the six buildings, buildings#1,#5 and#6 are shown as t 1-story buildings and building#4 as 10 stories, retaining the overall scale and composition of the original proposal. At this scale,these buildings will create considerable light,visibility,and contextual issues for the streetscape and the surrounding buildings. • Little material has been provided in the submitted documents to assess the full solar impact of a project of this size. A quick model of the proposed project run through the 3D modeling application Rhinoceros(commonly called"Rhino")reveals serious concerns about daylight throughout the year. Between mid-late September and late April,the street and sidewalk between Seneca Way and Aurora Street appear to be largely in shadow,a direct result of the building's height. This is a very negative consequence for the street, pedestrians, and the buildings opposite the proposed building site. • Building#I faces East State Street and Seneca Way,a major intersection. Its height and overall size dominate the block in an overwhelming fashion. Its two exterior facades are designed in a monotonous pattern with little attention to the very public faces presented to East State Street and Seneca Way. eo-Prt-ysp SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS • PRESERVATION SERVICES my PTP-Pt9P 212 CENTER STREET ,TNAC1. NEW YORK 14850 • By adhering to the triangular form for the floor plan,several undesirable conditions are created. For example,as drawn in the proposal,the B2 units have just a sinule interior courtyard window for the entire two-bedroom unit. This project will have a significant negative aesthetic impact on a highly visible downtown street block that serves as an important gateway for the city.As we stated in our earlier letters,this area should never have been"upzoned"to 120 feet. We urge the Planning Board and Common Council to revise this zoning limit by lowering it. Appropriate redevelopment of the site is possible with a 6-story building or even a 7-story building. Again,we advocate for sensitive redevelopment of this important site. We cannot support this project as currently designed with its I I-story and 10-story buildings.This triangular site demands a well-designed building that fits with the urban context and fabric of the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Sincerely, 1-\ JuleeJ I Presid t, Board o iDirectors V September 16, 2015 To: City of Ithaca Planning Board and Staff Dear Senior Planner Lisa Nicholas and members of the Planning Board We are writing to follow up on our initial letter to you dated July 27, 2015, regarding the proposed bar-restaurant proposed for 416-418 E. State Street. As co-owners of 420 E. State Street, we remain strongly opposed to the proposal due to the potential for significant negative environmental impacts on the abutting and nearby residents in the East Hill Historic District. Chief among the concerns are noise pollution as well as the potential danger to patrons due to the off-site parking arrangement which requires crossing a state route that has a history of traffic accidents and fatalities. At the July 28, 2015 Planning Board discussion of this proposal it became clear that the objections to the proposed off-site parking arrangement, and the potential increase in noise pollution due to the symbiotic arrangement between the Bar Argos and the proposed bar-restaurant, are legitimate and serious concerns shared by several stakeholders. Subsequent to this initial meeting,the developers'team held a meeting for the neighbors with the aim of learning about their concerns and clarifying aspect of the proposal. Though we were unable to attend the meeting,we read the minutes of the meeting circulated by Scott Whitham's office as well as those circulated by a neighbor who attended the meeting. Based on these minutes and the description of the agenda item for the Planning Board's September 22, 2015 meeting, it seems as if the appellants have not made any changes to the proposed project except for requesting a curb cut. In other words, it appears that even at this early and incipient stage of the business, stakeholder concerns have not been taken seriously. During the meeting, Avi Smith, a party to the project, also made clear that the new bar- restaurant will operate as a 'steam valve'for the Bar Argos thus shifting the noise and parking issues from his Argos Inn guests to the greater neighborhood. Even with only the Bar Argos in place,the environmental impacts are significant: you can find comments on the Yelp social media site from patrons about finding additional parking on adjacent residential streets (e.g. see Yelp comment dated October 21, 2014: "Parking is limited, especially during special events. We had to find side street parking in one of the residential suites[sic]"). Such pressures on the neighborhood will significantly increase if the proposed bar-restaurant is allowed to go through. 1 Furthermore, Avi could not guarantee that the business would not evolve into one with a roof- top entertainment area. Such statements add to the uncertainty regarding future expansion and changes to the current proposal. Likewise, he could not guarantee that he would remain a co-owner of the business even five years from now.This is understandable but underscores that promises of responsible management made today may not be kept by another owner. If this dangerous parking arrangement is approved and the significant area variance granted, which would then permit the bar- restaurant use,this use would remain with the property in perpetuity regardless of ownership. For these reasons, we remain opposed to the proposed parking arrangement and the granting of the area variance being requested. Since the project remains essentially unaltered, we attach here a copy of our original letter and the photos showing the proximity of 416-418 E. State Street and 420 E. State Street as well as the deficiencies in the proposed pedestrian route for the parking arrangement plan (a plan that the County also disapproved of). Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns as you conduct the environmental review for this proposal. Sincerely, Neha Khanna and Eric Rosario Attachments: 1. July 27, 2015 Khanna Rosario Statement to Planning Board Re 416-418 E. State St. 2. Photo of south facing private driveway and lack of south facing pedestrian curb cut on E. State St. 3. Photo of lack of north facing curb cut on south side of E. State St. 4. Photo of low wall and sheer drop on south side of E. State St. 5. Zoning Appeal 2991 -416-418 E. State St. (Rosenblum) - County GML Response-07-17-15 6. Argos_Yelp_Reviews_2014-2015 2 From: Matthew Clark Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:09 PM To: Lisa Nicholas Subject: 416-418 E. State Steet Public Comment To the members of the Ithaca Planning Board, We understand that there is another public hearing regarding the excessive zoning variances requested by the owners of 416-418 E. State Street. Attached is the message sent for a prior meeting stating my family's history concerning the introduction of the Argos Inn as a nuisance to our neighborhood and our dismay that a nightclub is requesting variances so they can further intrude on our family living space. Here it is at 10:45pm on Wednesday, September 16, and conversations from the Argos amphitheater can be heard clearly since it is another warm September evening. These loud conversations were never an issue prior to the Argos, and now having even more bar noises extended for three hours further into the evening is absolutely unacceptable. The owners of 416-418 have no legal standing to say a bar is "as right" under the B-4 zoning ordinance since they have insufficient parking. By zoning rules, the three current parking spaces offered by the 416-418 owners gives them the right to a bar or restaurant of 150 square feet (http://www.citvofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/1435); their proposed bar is much, much bigger. Having an arrangement for shared parking at the Gateway Center is laughable and frankly dangerous for any patrons. The planning board could be liable for any accident that could occur from a granted parking variance that requires patrons crossing a state highway. As long-term residential owners in the East Hill Historic District, we ask that these variances be denied. The building at 416-418 E. State Street is not under any hardship and not only is there no public good in granting these variances, but there will be further detriment to us residential neighbors and (because of parking safety) our community in general. Again I am extending an offer to planning board members to visit our backyard any warm evening to hear the existing nuisance of incessant bar conversations on warm evenings, and then imagine this nuisance being extended until after lam. Please support our Ithaca community and deny the variances requested by the 416-418 owners. Sincerely, Matthew Clark Virginia Augusta 419 E. Seneca St., Ithaca, New York 14850 September 169 2015 To: Members of the Ithaca City Board of Planning and Development Re-. The State Street TrIangle Project-. Who Needs V. While Ithacans ponder the 11-story skyscraper proposed in the heart of downtown, they must ask what this apartment project might do for its 600-or-so occupants. The developer, Campus Advantage of Austin, Texas, says "The targeted market is primarily college students,yy as stated in no uncertain terms on documents filed with the City Planning Board. But the skyscraper site, dubbed the State Street Triangle, is at the foot of East and South Hills, far from the college campuses. Cornell and Ithaca College students would have to commute more than a mile up Ithaca's steepest hills, to reach the centers of their education. They'd be expected to walk, hop a bus, maybe hitch a ride, but not drive: City zoning now designates the building site "pedestrian,)) meaning that no offstreet parking would be provided for residentscars. Is this drawback important? In view of the high cost of a college education, plus Ithaca's notoriously high rents, it's too bad to add commuting costs and lost time in transit. Distance from campus would likely make these apartments less popular with students, meaning harder for owners to keep them occupied. Some added traffic congestion around the downtown building and nearby hotels has to be expected. And there are other losses: Undergrads living at a distance have less chance to participate in events and activities that should be a readily available part of college life. Colleges may lose a sense of belonging with these students that can be lifelong, if they don't live within walking distance. Fortunately, changes are afoot. Collegetown redevelopment is at last enjoying bursts of energy with half a dozen housing projects afoot, some of them major,-, That provides hope for rebirth of this next-to-campus East Hill neighborhood. And on South Hilly if need for more student housing is demonstrated, examination of potential reuse of industrial sites near Ithaca College should continue. It seems those better-located opportunities should take precedence over the Campus Advantage proposal, which would in effect be competing with them. And leaving the State Street Triangle site unredeveloped at this time would give the city flexibility to react usefully to new problems when our many current downtown projects are completed. Jane Marcham 414 E. Buffalo St. Ithaca, N.Y. City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)— Part III Project Name:301 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd.--State Street Triangle Project Date Created: 7/14/15 1 Revised: 7/30/14 1 Updated 9/17/15 Yellow highlighted text has been added since the previous draft. Information received in the mailing for the 9-22 PB meeting has not been incorporated PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to redevelop the 0.759-acre site with an 11-story, 116' tall, 288,845 GSF mixed-use 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 1-bedroom/1-bath to 5-bedroom/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 — limited site parking (4-5 spaces to accommodate deliveries and loading) is proposed. The project is in the CDB-120 Zoning District and requires Design Review. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), §176-4 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 20 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(DEFINE)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 proof-rolled(DEFINE) 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). Page 1 of 11 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. 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 20-22 foot depth interval at boreholes B-1 and B-2. 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 • Dewatering techniques for#4 above—if a perched water table is encountered • Amount of fill to be removed IMPACT ON WATER The project sponsor anticipates that project will use approximately 25,500 gallons/day. The Lead Agency requests confirmation that the utilities are adequate to provide this amount. 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 ensure it does not affect the creek. No impact anticipated. Page 2 of 11 IMPACT ON AIR The project site is in the densely developed downtown core. Construction is projected to last approximately 20 months and will likely be concurrent with several other construction projects in the downtown area. The cumulative 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 should employ the following applicable dust-control measures as appropriate: • Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust. • Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site. Re-seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils. • Keeping roads clear of dust and debris. • Requiring trucks to be covered. • Prohibiting burning of debris on site. The project includes a 12,341 SF of new retail space — some of which is anticipated to be restaurant use. Both the building and restaurants will require venting. The Lead Agency is concerned about potential impacts, particularly to pedestrians, from noise; smell, and air flow emanating from mechanical vents. More information is needed about air-handling equipment and systems IMPACT ON PLANTS&ANIMALS No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project site is extremely prominent—all four fagades of the building will be visible. In addition, the building—as proposed —will be the tallest and largest in the downtown area. The Lead Agency has expressed concerns about the size, height, and massing of the building as follows: • Concern with the building height, especially as there is no setback to allow light to reach the street • Too massive for the site— needs to be broken down into smaller pieces. • Concern that the massing would create a visual canyon-like effect. • Need visual renderings from a human perspective,from lower elevations. • Need better understanding of street-level experience on Green Street. Other concerns: obstructed views of vegetated hillside on Six Mile Creek,visibility of mechanical systems and vents— need more information In response to these concerns the applicant has submitted the following: • A shadow study, dated June 24, 2015, and prepared by Whitham Planning and Design, LLC. • Revised building elevations and a visualization, dated July 23, 2015 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative. Page 3 of 11 • A new site plan, dated July 23, 2015 and prepared by Whitham Planning and Design, LLC, shows changes to the intersection and curbline on E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd.that are intended to improve traffic flow,facilitate pedestrian circulation between the Commons and the project site, provide a more generous sidewalk, and accommodate outdoor dining and congregation. The site plan also shows a sidewalk along the Green St. side of the building. (This proposal is more fully described in a memo and accompanying drawings, dated July 20, 2015, from Steve R. Ferranti of SRF Associates to Tim Logue, City Transportation Engineer.) The revised elevations show breaking-up the majority of the fagades into three horizontal 'bands' of varying styles, materials, and fenestration patterns. The bands consist of three stories with cornice at the pedestrian level that has limestone storefronts and masonry above, 7 stories above — topped by a darker eleventh story having similar materials as the ground floors. No reduction in height or volumetric variation is currently proposed. The shadow study shows existing and proposed conditions, as well as two alternatives: a shift in building position and a reduction of building height. Potential Mitigations: • Implementation of the proposed intersection improvements to increase the public space in front to the building. IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES The project site is on E. State St./M.L.K., Jr. Blvd. in the block preceding the eastern end of the Commons, the City's retail, tourism, and entertainment center. The applicant has stated the desire that this project feel like an extension of the Commons. 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 Street 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 mixed-use buildings, which are predominantly made of brick. The proposed building occupies a large prominent parcel and, as proposed, is designed to the maximum allowed height. 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 proposed project has been reviewed by the City Historic Preservation Planner who offered the following advisory comments in a memo dated 8-19-15 to the Planning Board: Despite the architectural similarities between the proposed building and some within the historic district, it is my opinion that proposed 11-story building that encompasses an entire block is not compatible with the massing, size, scale or proportions of the Ithaca Downtown Historic District. Buildings within the historic district are typically only 4 or 5 stories, and, at most, 7 bays wide. This contrasts dramatically with the size, scale and massing of the proposed new building, which dwarfs the historic structures and makes the building contextually incompatible with surrounding historic environment. The Page 4 of 11 massing is further emphasized by the building's relatively flat elevations that read as single volumes. This design feature makes the already large building feel significantly larger than any other contributing or non-contributing structure within the historic district. As a comparison, the primary facades of the two largest contributing buildings within the district, 114-118 N. Tioga and 200-204 E. State Streets, are approximately 114 to 113 the size of the north elevation of proposed building. It is my opinion that the incorporation of architectural features that break up the building's massing and give it the appearance of being several smaller buildings could make the building more contextually and aesthetically compatible with Ithaca Downtown Historic District. The introduction of substantial light wells in place of the vertical bands of windows on all elevations, but particularly the north and west, would significantly reduce the visual impact of the massing. This design feature would also be reflective of the late-19th and early-20th design scheme the architect seems to be referencing with the tripartite composition. A reduction in the overall height of the project or stepping back the upper four stories of the building could also reduce the visual weight of the building, making it more compatible with its historic surroundings. Failure to physically or visually reduce the size, scale and massing of proposed building will result in a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the Ithaca Downtown Historic District. The applicant must demonstrate how the project responds sympathetically to the district. Potential Mitigations: • Where facing the Historic District, step building down and vary massing to be more compatible to the height and rhythm of the historic context. 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 1-81) 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 5 of 11 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 has submitted an updated Traffic Impact Study dated August 201S and prepared by SRF Associates, which is under review by the City transportation Engineer. 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 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. flew,The applicaRt has pFepA-1-;P-d- that the stFeetseape iR suFFewndiRg the building be designed te feel fully described OR a meme (and aerzampaRyiRg dFaWiRgS), dated july 20, 2015, fFE)PR Steve R. analysis may needed te determine how the proposal addresses petential impacts of to 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 — including move-in/-out coordination. Also see Impacts to Community Character for information needed. Potential transportation mitigations: Page 6 of 11 • Shuttle Service • Incorporating parking into the project • Green Street public sidewalk— rebuild and add 5'treelawn and street trees • Design and installation of intersection improvements Transportation Construction Impacts: The following information is needed to evaluate potential construction impacts of the project: • Construction staging and deliveries • Potential Road and sidewalk closures • Construction routing • Contractor parking IMPACT ON ENERGY The applicant intends to exceed NYS Building Code standards for energy use. LEED Certification is anticipated. Medium pressure gas line needed- Utility Plan should be submitted showing how the connection will be made No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS The project site is in the downtown core. Construction is expected to last approximately 20 months. 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. The Lead Agency will limit noise-producing construction activities. 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 20-22 foot depth interval at boreholes a-1 and a-2. 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. Page 7 of 11 The applicant submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated May 2015, and a cover letter, dated May 7, 2015, both prepared by Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&Q. The report identified an historic filling station with associated underground storage tanks, as well as the known petroleum contamination in the subsurface soil (approximately 18-19 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 1 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 sub-slab depressurization system, depending on the design of the building and parking garage. The Lead Agency recognizes 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 — insert description of character of downtown Ithaca — In a letter dated August 20, 2015 from Ed Marx,Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning to Lisa Nicholas Senior Planner. Marx provides the following preliminary comments for the project: Page 8 of 11 We have identified aspects that may have countywide impacts and may require further analysis, particularly potential impacts on parking. Based on the recent parking analysis conducted for the Hilton Canopy Hotel project, we expect this project along with the renovated Commons, other projects currently under construction, and proposed and potential projects downtown to contribute to a more significant increase in parking demand. We continue to believe that rather than trying to assess parking capacity on a case by case basis as new projects are proposed, this analysis should be conducted for build-out of downtown in accordance with recent zoning changes that increase the density of development allowed on several downtown parcels. This project would also rely heavily on TCAT service to both Cornell and Ithaca College. An analysis should be conducted to determine the capacity of transit service from downtown to these destinations. If necessary, the project should provide support to TCAT to accommodate an increase in that service. Insert comparison of project size to other downtown projects (Staff task): • GSF/footprint/#of units/#of bedrooms/how much parking provided Potential issues: • Adequacy of pedestrian facilities • Adequacy of public transportation to accommodate the volume and needs of residents • Adequacy of proximate services to serve residents • Adequacy of parking supply to meet demand created See attached Spreadsheet • Impact of a homogeneous demographic (predominately students) • Additional policing/fire/emergency response needed • Utility capacity analysis Information needed: • Scalable site plans clearly showing sidewalk widths and widths of unobstructed pedestrian travel paths with and without the proposed changes to the intersection at State and Aurora Streets. • Pedestrian Circulation Plan showing existing conditions, peak pedestrian demand, needed improvements on the project site and to the Commons, Green Street transit stop, Seneca Street transit stop, and East State Street across the `tuning fork' Potential Mitigations: o Green Street public sidewalk— rebuild and add 5'treelawn and street trees o Design and installation of intersection improvements Page 9 of 11 • Expected resident breakdown —student/non-student—and institution attending. How will the building be leased — by bedroom of apartments? The applicant has provided the following information about resident breakdown: The mix of unit types has changed in order to address the concerns of the community that the project is poised to be a "student dorm." The proposal initially had 210 units. The change in units to 240 resulted from converting 104 bedroom units into 40 studio apartments. With this adjustment, 140 of the 240, or about 60%of the units, are studio-, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. This modified unit mix was made to accommodate a mix of people, including young professionals looking to live downtown. • Market analysis performed for project • TCAT service and capacity at downtown bus stops • Building program and services provided to residents/students: the applicant has provided the following information about building programming: The project will have on-site amenities including ground-floor retail, a fitness center, quiet rooms, and residents. There will be 24/7 on-site management with a fully staffed building, and programming for residents focused on community involvement, volunteerism, and professional development. The management team consists of a General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Leasing Manager, Resident Director (a live-in position), 7 Community Assistants, Maintenance Supervisor, Maintenance Technician, Porter, and Corporate Support, including an assigned Regional Manager and Vice President of Operations. Applicant should define positions—e.g. on-site vs. off site as well as roles and responsibilities • Inventory of proximate services for residents • Additional emergency response services needed • Information on location and size of existing and required utilities and plans for extension or upgrades if needed • Clarification regarding cost burden of proposed street improvements • Possible expansion of TCAT Services? • Transportation Demand Management Plan: o Projected parking demand (documented with evidence)for residents and retail o Types of parking needed (storage, long-term, short-term, etc.) o Parking Supply: ■ Downtown Garages (including build-out of all approved projects) —See attached spreadsheet ■ Other types of parking that will be provided Public Comments Received The Lead Agency has received numerous public comments about this project. Commenters have expressed concerns about the following: • Impacts to Historic District due to size, height and architectural style • Impact on Downtown Character due to influx of a large number of students Page 10 of 11 • Impact on Aesthetics • Solar access on E State and Aurora • Capacity of City infrastructure and services to support the project • Lack of affordability Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner Page 11 of 11 STREAM COLLABORATIVE September 17, 2015 architecture + landscape architecture dpc Lisa Nicholas,AICP, Senior Planner Planning Division 108 E Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Lisa: This letter transmits to you 11 copies of the revised site demo, layout, grading, and planting plans along with a preliminary utility plan prepared by TG Miller Engineers. We are also including the front end documents for the geotechnical and Phase 1 environmental reports with the full reports expected to be delivered by the 22nd of September. We are not including any revisions to the building plans at this time as no changes have been made since the last planning board meeting. As you know, we are hoping to receive a recommendation from the planning board to the BZA for our hearing in October.We will plan to make any necessary revisions after this month's planning board meeting in anticipation of site plan approval at the October planning board meeting. Sincerely, Noah Demarest AIA, RA, RLA, LEED AP Principal noah@streamcolab.com 607.216.8802 STREAM Collaborative architecture+landscape architecture dpc 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850 September 16, 2015 Project No. CE-15-030 STREAM COLLABORATIVE Architecture +Landscape Architecture DPC 123 S. Cayuga Street, Suite 201 Ithaca,NY 14850 Phone: 607-216-8802 Cell: 607-262-0305 Attention: Noah Demarest RA, RLA, LEED AP Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation 215 —221 West Spencer Road City of Ithaca,New York Dear Mr. Demarest: Empire Geo Services, Inc. (Empire) has prepared this letter report presenting preliminary geotechnical information obtained from a site investigation completed recently at the referenced site. We understand that City of Ithaca is requiring some information in regard to the suitability of site for construction. Project and Site Information We understand the project consists of construction of four new apartment buildings with each building 3 stories high (nominally two above grade floors with walk-out, partially below grade lower level or basement). The site is located at 215-221 West Spencer Street in Ithaca, New York. During our visit, the site could only be accessed from an existing gravel drive and parking area associated with a rental unit off of South Cayuga Street. The site slopes steeply down rapidly from South Cayuga Street toward West Spencer Road. The site is wooded and grass covered. It is understood that the site was formerly occupied with a multi-unit apartment building which was demolished a few years back. Information pertaining to the exact location of the former building, its demolition, and site restoration to current condition is not available at this time. Method of Investigation The subsurface exploration program consisted of excavating six test pits identified as TP-I thru TP-6 which were completed on August 31st, 2015 at the proposed site. The test locations were selected and marked by Empire within the proposed building area Empire Goe-Services, Inc. Project No.: CE-15-030 213-221 W. Spencer Rd. September 15, 2015 Page 2 based on safe access and clearance from larger trees and steeper areas of site. In addition and for similar reasons, small equipment had to be used to excavate the test pits at this time. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 2.5 feet to about 7.5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Each test pit was observed and documented on site by Empire. The individual test pits logs are attached for your review. In general, soil conditions at the test pit locations typically consisted of a surficial layer of about 1 to 3 inches of grass, roots and topsoil, this underlain by fill materials. The fill consisted of mixtures of shale rock fragments of various size, along with silts, clays, sands, gravels and miscellaneous debris (e.g., concrete, glass, ash, wood, etc.). The fill extended to approximate depths of 4 feet in TP-1, 2.5 to 3 feet in TP-5 and about 5 to 5.5 feet in TP-6. The depth to bottom of fill at TP-2, TP-3 and TP-4 was not reached due limitations of the small size equipment and presence of concrete rubble. Indigenous soils beneath the fill, where encountered, consisted of varying mixtures of silts, sands and gravels. Apparent weathered rock was observed at the bottom of TP-1. Based on the results of the subsurface investigation, the following preliminary geotechnical information and recommendations are provided with regard to the design of the building addition foundations. 1. It appears that spread foundations can be used to support the proposed buildings, provided that existing fill materials, former building remains and any unsuitable native soils, if present, are removed in their entirety from beneath foundation bearing grades. We anticipate that much of the fill will be removed in association with excavation for the lower or basement levels of the buildings. 2. Spread foundations should bear on suitable indigenous soil subgrades, bedrock, or on compacted structural fill which is placed over the indigenous soil subgrades or bedrock following excavation and removal of fill and/or unsuitable soils. 3. Some rock excavation may be necessary in establishing basement and/or foundation grades. 4. In order to provide a full geotechnical evaluation report and to include allowable soil and / or rock bearing capacities, seismic site class, etc., further investigation and study will be necessary by completing a series of test borings at the site. 2 Empire Goe-Services, Inc. Project No.: CE-15-030 213-221 W. Spencer Rd. September 15, 2015 Page 3 It should be understood that issues relating to slope stability, if any, are outside the scope of this cursory evaluation and have not been considered herein. Should you have questions concerning this preliminary information or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, Empire Geo Services, Inc. Parviz Akbari, EIT John S. Hutchison, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer and Project Reviewer Attachments: Test Pit logs 3 EMPIRE% hh o Project Name: TEST 15 22 O. Spencer Test Pit#: TP-1 SERVICES, IN C. Empire Project#: CE-15-030 Field Rep.: P. A. AS�UMDIARY°F "'ENy`E` INC Date of Test Pit: August 31, 2015 Weather: Sun & Cloud w J TEST PIT SOIL DESCRIPTION NOTES Q Approximately 1 to 3 inch grass, roots, topsoil Fill: Gray-brown SHALE fragments, some Cobbles trace roots, trace tile, trace glass (Moist) Fill: Brown-gray ROCKS (Cobbles and Boulders), some sandy Silt(Moist) Difficult to excavate starting at 3 feet to completion. 0 Possible top of weathered ROCK with soil seams. Moist to Wet Gray wet clayey seam. N 5 U) Test pit complete at 5 feet, not able to advance No groundwater was further, bucket scraping of rock. observed. 0 .X N 3 0 w t n p 10 15 Equipment: Boccat Mini-Ecxavator E20 Location of Test Pit: (see Site Exploration Plan) Start 11:40 End: 12:30 EMPIRE% hh o Project Name: TEST 15 22 O. Spencer Test Pit#: TP_2 SERVICES, IN C. Empire Project#: CE-15-030 Field Rep.: P. A. AS�UMDIARY°F "'ENy`E` INC Date of Test Pit: August 31, 2015 Weather: Sun & Cloud w J TEST PIT SOIL DESCRIPTION NOTES Q Approximately 1 to 3 inch grass, roots, topsoil Fill: Brown Silty SAND and GRAVEL, some Some difficulty to cobbles, trace glass, trace wood, trace ceramic excavate upper 3 to trace roots, (Moist) 4 feet. Fill: Gray/white ASH, trace sand, trace gravel, 5 trace silt, trace glass, trace cobbles U) (Moist) 0 Grades to "some"flat rocks at bottom 1 foot Test pit complete at 7.2 feet, not able to advance No groundwater was o further. observed. 0 w Q p 10 15 Equipment: Boccat Mini-Ecxavator E20 Location of Test Pit: (see Site Exploration Plan) Start 3:37 End:4:30 EMPIRE% hh o Project Name: TEST 15 22 O. Spencer Test Pit#: TP-3 SERVICES, IN C. Empire Project#: CE-15-030 Field Rep.: P. A. AS�UMDIARY°F "'ENy`E` INC Date of Test Pit: August 31, 2015 Weather: Sun & Cloud w J TEST PIT SOIL DESCRIPTION NOTES Q Approximately 1 to 3 inch grass, roots, topsoil Fill: Gray-brown SHALE fragments, piece of pipe, little: "sand, gravel, silt" (Moist) Grades to "some" Rocks (flat shales, cobbles) Test pit complete at 2.5 feet, not able to advance No groundwater was further, encountered "CONCRETE"at bottom, observed. bucket scaraping on concrete, extended test pit 0 longer towars TP-4 to by pass concret, no 5 U) change. 0 X N 3 0 w t n p 10 15 Equipment: Boccat Mini-Ecxavator E20 Location of Test Pit: (see Site Exploration Plan) Start 1:00 End: 1:30 EMPIRE% hh o Project Name: TEST 15 22 O. Spencer Test Pit#: TP-4 SERVICES, IN C. Empire Project#: CE-15-030 Field Rep.: P. A. AS�UMDIARY°F "'ENy`E` INC Date of Test Pit: August 31, 2015 Weather: Sun & Cloud w J TEST PIT SOIL DESCRIPTION NOTES Q Approximately 1 to 3 inch grass, roots, topsoil Fill: Gray-brown SHALE fragments (Moist) Fill: Gray SILT and CLAY, some Sand, some Gravel, some Shale (Moist) Fill: CONCRETE rubbles. Large concrete pieces (Moist) was encountered, extending laterally. 0 Test pit complete at 4 feet, not able to advance No groundwater was 5 further, encountered large "CONCRETE" chunks observed. N some with reinforcement. 0 X N 3 0 W w t n p 10 15 Equipment: Boccat Mini-Ecxavator E20 Location of Test Pit: (see Site Exploration Plan) Start 1:35 End:2:00 EMPIRE% hh o Project Name: TEST 15 22 O. Spencer Test Pit#: TP-5 SERVICES, IN C. Empire Project#: CE-15-030 Field Rep.: P. A. AS�UMDIARY°F "'ENy`E` INC Date of Test Pit: August 31, 2015 Weather: Sun & Cloud w J TEST PIT SOIL DESCRIPTION NOTES Q Approximately 1 to 4 inch grass, roots, topsoil Fill: Gray-brown SHALE fragments, some sand, some gravel, some silt, trace: "bricks, cement, tile" (Moist) A dark brown organic layer noted seperating Brown SAND, some Silt, some Gravel, trace fill and native soils, cobble sloping down toward 0 Becomes slightly clayey B-6 (north). (Verty Moist to Wet N 5 U) Test pit complete at 5 feet. No groundwater was observed. 0 c X N 3 0 W m w t n p 10 15 Equipment: Boccat Mini-Ecxavator E20 Location of Test Pit: (see Site Exploration Plan) Start 2:12 End:2:40 EMPIRE% hh o Project Name: TEST 15 22 O. Spencer Test Pit#: TP-6 SERVICES, IN C. Empire Project#: CE-15-030 Field Rep.: P. A. AS�UMDIARY°F "'ENy`E` INC Date of Test Pit: August 31, 2015 Weather: Sun & Cloud w J TEST PIT SOIL DESCRIPTION NOTES Q Approximately 1 to 3 inch grass, roots, topsoil Fill: Brown-gray SHALE fragments, some silty Sand and Gravel, some debris: "wood, bricks, concrete, piece of cast iron pipe (Moist) Possible boulder east side wall. Fill: Gray SILT and CLAY, trace roots, trace 5 U) debris (Moist) Brown-gray SAND, some Gravel, some Silt, trace Possible native soils shale starting from 5 to 5.5 w (Wet) feet, easy to excavate. XTest pit complete at 7.5 feet, not able to advance No groundwater was o further. observed. W 0 w Q p 10 15 Equipment: Boccat Mini-Ecxavator E20 Location of Test Pit: (see Site Exploration Plan) Start 3:37 End:4:30 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Vacant Parcel at 215 WEST SPENCER.STREET TAx ID MAP 93,BLOCK 79 PARCEL 5.1 CITY OF ITHACA NEw YORK SUMMARY As authorized by Edward Cope, Empire Geoservices, Inc. (Empire) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of a parcel of land, of which Edward and Carolyn Crape are the current owner, at the above-referenced location ("the site" or "the subject property").. The ESA was completed in general conformance with ASTM Standard E1527-13. The scope of services, objectives, extent and limitations of the ESA are described in greater detail in the text of this report. Empire's findings regarding the site relative to E1527-13 are summarized below. o The site is comprised of one parcel of land situated entirely within the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,New York, at 215 'Nest Spencer Street, between South Cayuga Street to the east and West Spencer Street to the west, The parcel lies in an area which is a primarily residential and proximal to commercial and government property. The site is listed in municipal records as being roughly rectangular in outline and having an overall area of 0.47 acres. The City Assessor's tax map identification number for the site is 93.- 7-5.1 and tax rolls list Edward and Carolyn Cope as the current owner. The site has been assigned an address of 215-21 Spencer Street West by the Ithaca City fire department. The site zoning code is 334, vacant commercial, according to the Tompkins County Tax Assessor. The subject site is not an "abandoned property" as defined at Section 3.2.1 of ASTM E1527-13. o Access to the site is available from 'Nest Spencer Street and South Cayuga Street. o A reconnaissance (walkover) of the site was conducted by an Empire Environmental Professional on September 14,2015. o Public records indicate the site is served by natural gas and electricity from public utilities as well as municipal water. Rain and snowinelt is presumed to infiltrate directly into the subsurface. There were no areas of erosion identified. o Features which could indicate the potential presence of underground storage tanks I of 37 Pbase I ESA 215 West Spencer Stxeet Ithaca,NY PREL M1NARY o Features which could indicate the potential presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) on the property - such as fill ports or vent pipes—were not noted on the premises by Empire. o A Radius Map Report relative to the subject site was obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut in order to assist in the ASTM-required government regulatory agency database review. The purpose of such review, in conjunction with the site and locality reconnaissance by an environmental professional, is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions associated with the site insofar as the subject property itself and regulated facilities within ASTM-specified minimum search distances of it may be concerned. The Radius Map Report identified multiple sites listed within the ASTM-specified minimum search distance. The subject site was not identified within the EDR Radius Map Report a A Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) inquiry was submitted by Empire to the Clerk of the City of Ithaca. The City has not responded to the FOIL at the time that this ESA was finalized. An addendum to this ESA will be issued if additional information is available. o On the basis of information collected by Empire through this ESA process, it is Empire's professional opinion that there are indications of ASTM ,Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)relative to 215 West Spencer Street (Tax Map 93.-7-5.1). Section 6.0 and Section 8.0 of this ESA Rather discusses the source and analysis of information, * The chemical compounds trichloroethylene (TCE) and cis-1,-2 DCE were identified within groundwater samples collected from two monitoring wells located at the subject site. The groundwater samples were collected as a pail of larger area wide investigation The presence of un impacted resents an ASTM REC. p groundwater at the site represents • Area wide vapor mitigation systems are noted at structures proximal to the subject site. Vapor intrusion has been documented at locations proximal to the subject site. The presence of vapors at the subject site is not documented however as there is currently no structure present, Empire notes that the scope of this ESA does not address the potential presence of chemical vapors at the subject site. Plans that include the future construction of occupied space at the subject site may warrant further discussion of the presence of the chemical compounds TCE and cis-1,2 DCE documented within the groundwater at the subject site. Further discussion of the possible presence of vapors originating from the documented release and subsequent impact to groundwater at the subject site and vicinity may address the potential need for a vapor mitigation system.. of 37 Phase I ESA 215 West Spencer Street Ithaca,NY PRELIMINARY PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 215 WEST SPENCER STREET CITY OF ITHACA NEW YoRK 1.0 INTRODUCTION Empire Geoservices, Inc. (Empire) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the above-referenced property("the site"or"the subject property/parcel")pursuant to a site-specific agreement for such work between Edward and Carolyn Cope and Empire. In addition to the case narrative, this ESA report contains fourteen separate appendices which include maps, aerial photographs, historical land use information, and documentation of Federal, state and local government municipal regulatory agency database review and inquiry. This report is an instrument of service of Empire and includes the results of limited research, a review of specified and reasonably ascertainable (available) listings and a site reconnaissance, all of which have as their combined goal the identification of Recognized Environmental Conditions in connection with the site as defined by ASTM Standard E1527-13, Standard Practice for Enviromnental Site Assessments; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. This assessment may reflect additional or reduced services or service enhancements requested by the client. Recognized Environmental Conditions are defined in the ASTM standard as "the presence or likely presence a f any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release„ a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include `de minimis' conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action ifbrought to the attention of'appropriate government agencies." Empire's ESA of the subject site was completed in accordance with generally-accepted practices of the profession undertaken in similar studies at the sm-ne time and in the same geographical area, and Empire observed that degree of care and skill generally exercised by the profession under similar circumstances and conditions. 3 of 37 t'hase I ESA 215 West Spencer Street Ithaca.NY PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW MAP-4395275.2S n ,a m a 5t c> B T F t o S p W Buffele 1 m f� � s /(/lpyl P r # 4 rrn►► F 4[ a` 5` Target Property 0 114 1Q 1 Mies Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property Indian Reservations B1A • Sites at elevations lower than Power transmission Imes the target property X Manufactured Gas Plants Pipelines National Priority List Sites 1©0-year Road zone tJept.Defense Sites 500-year Road zone National Wetland Inventory State wetlands This report Includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information,The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. SITE NAME: 215 West Spencer Street CLIENT: SJB Services Inc. ADDRESS: 215 West Spencer Street CONTACT: William Jab lonsid Ithaca NY 14850 INQUIRY#: 4395275.2s LAPLONG: 42.4338176.4991 DATE: September 02,2015 12:00 pm Copyright..,2015 E0'A,1nc.v 2010 Tole Atlas Ref. OM009. DETAIL MAP - 4395275.25 n4 Ave m. Pr ospa Ct rn i j f 5t at'`J HWY 93B w Y 6 *t?3 A '/" P I e a&a n t BEECHTREECA CENTER P 1 6 s a n 6 �p 1 HF`.CCNSMUCrI N HOME A HEALTH CARE CENTER I /�//,•f p PECDNSTRUCTI N I40ME AND HEALTH CAPE CTR I 4 e v N y, Ji c col UM CCI nmEis St / f - INC 9 h ¢ ✓ s/ / F / R1 i r vYaW PI Hltly J ce c Qt s i" A 5 Park St yew ct xrr ¢� Grand ti a v p4 PSI COMMUNITY SCHDQ U6H1 ri q ry+ 24 Target Property6 t11fi 1B 1!4 M IfeS 9 Sites at elevations higher than 9 _ or equal to the target property Indian Reservations BIA • Sites at elevations lower than Power transmission the target property Imes A Manufactured Gas Plants Pipelines it Sensitive Receptors 100-year good zone National Priority List Sites 500-year flood zone Dept Defense Sites National Wetland Inventory State Wetlands This report includes Interactive Ma Layers t0 display and/or aide reap information.The legend includes ortly those icons for the default map view. SITE NAME: 215 West Spencer Street CLIENT: SJB Services Inc. ADDRESS: 215 West Spencer Street CONTACT: Willlam Jab Ions ki Ithaca NY 14850 INQUIRY#: 4395275.2s LAAT/LONG: 42.4338176.4991 CRATE: September 02,2015 12:02 pm Copyright;-:2015 EOR,Inc,19,2010 NO Atkas Rol-N 2000. --- tt i� s��a"' c�h 1 i i nn �•=° Sa � M1�s-+141 e. � -+�- � __+ �1 iiy} e` mfn��•�•�n Ir y n tytt�` m m m {E-�__s m m m q n o f oz f,— -._- m m rn In 1.14 z_-mzz I�]f11 01),1� ` f°1 .1Je1 ^1 'or$317no' ' o 0a00 1'- zzz-_z 2zz F I ua t tttt t I � 1�5 IN i zzmzzz t tt f I �tfrrl I ti� 51 i 5 s 17@v voC7 t t tt d + I I f I 1 i � 1�5 5 q tttt`� �� � $ f f + I f + � i r`^i S�n R.�•c1 ,1 Y n m __� s5 S n i13 Iq ^CEPdWA �7�- -�__^•f R1 G ir }�{j Sr'[W[yyne��•�� a���$ c S��vy$}�,_�'q �'` "' `_`- tit r_�z Hz In a r:9 v W t' 0 0 -•z2�y Z°' 24w+5ao i7(1 11.,,b� �r 0 i.� r3'8b /SR 41N �' olco4swv + rI} �mm � . Qr.1 DID h�POL10� t [0 15 � I 1 S�RF,Ej•"`^ � _+5tt i�sn - , to t+ y5{{`i 1 tt t..` 4o I1rI f t t� �s , , tt + It Sm'm a� '"PAN Ta6m t } - n mm� OZ m 1�m P m ',• 5} tt G I T ,,1 v 'M. 6' o i 'rY S �i rr I R v� M. � m.. m � it gy. m � _ Y m � a r - fvAlOG71nL1�S P�J i� ~t1 [7m�CJ+ _ \, J � I ��'�.��� ��♦~t y7��1 QOOE9a O 9�66 �yE A g ^�uy�.roy da �vaFi 1�Iiv�m�ii �: C3 t t m rv+�Ci 'i11n !:1 / tom 0e�9 � z� .Mr,i�� // ppyy3� o S'L YI�_��ee11 may- O'�•i4�D_1� � c�•i Y1l 1 z% {1 fyR1 2�T in WSP 111E8@N1 e sl"su�-.Vetl'eYVif Y u1'U 9�00�F gule 12 EM€RSON POWER T1pRqA NSM ISSI ON 7rE'C[�a C neri,-{Irf mvYok q SEMI-ANNUAL VfORING PR3GA M A. NE V YORK Po40Ct{UNoWATE SMPLNG RESULTS FA1CdSONhn° WRTRN5AI55161 e�PJIx�rJIf' paRa�� MARCH 2011 mm rro a:omooa o7-O34 T . G . MILLER , P . C . E N G I N E E R S A N D 5 Il R V E Y O R S 203 N.Aurora Street I Ithaca,NY 14850 1 phone 607-272-6477 1 fax 607-273-6322 1 www.tgmillerpc.com September 15, 2015 Scott Gibson, PE Stormwater Management Officer City of Ithaca 510 First Street Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Mr. Gibson, Regarding the need for a Stormwater SPDES permit for the 215-221 West Spencer Street project we offer the following narrative: The project site is 0.47 acres and it is anticipated that most of the site will be disturbed during construction. A site disturbance of more than % acre and less than 1 acre, that creates less than % acre of additional impervious area, requires the preparation of a "Basic" Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Stormwater Management Officer (SMO) prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. A Basic SWPPP requires controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction. Permanent stormwater controls to reduce the rate of runoff and provide water quality treatment are not required. The existing site cover is predominantly pervious with 85% of the site being vegetation. Stormwater runoff sheet drains to the northwest, from South Cayuga Street towards West Spencer Street, entering the City's stormwater collection system on West Spencer Street. The proposed development of the site will maintain these drainage patterns and will increase impervious cover from 15% to 62%. As summarized in the two attached cover type illustrations, the footprint of new impervious surfaces will increase by 0.22 acres. Since the increase of impervious surfaces is under the % acre threshold, as described in City Code Chapter 282, we understand the project is exempt from installing permanent stormwater management practices for either quality or quantity control. The City Code does require that at least two strategies for "Better Site Design" be incorporated into the proposed plan for any Basic SWPPP project. The preliminary list of Better Site Design practices that will be considered for this site include Bioretention Filters and Tree Planting. Proposed bioretention filters will collect runoff from a portion of the roofs and provide stormwater treatment. The landscape plans show several trees being planted, which will increase nutrient uptake and help to reduce runoff. David A.Herrick,P.E. Steven R.Rowe,P.E. Lee Dresser,L.S. Frank L Santelli,P.E. Dondi M.Harner,P.E. Darrin A.Brock,L.S. Andrew J.Sciarabba,P.E. LEED A.P.,C.P.E.S.C. Edward D.Ripic,Jr.,L.S. Standard storm sewer improvements will consist of catch basins located in the parking lot and between the buildings as needed to support the site grading. Deep sumps and hoods will be provided in the storm structures to further improve water quality. Temporary erosion and sediment control practices to be used during the construction phase will focus on minimizing tracking soil off-site, controlling dust and filtering any foundation dewatering discharges. A complete Basic SWPPP, prepared in accordance with the City's regulations, will be submitted for your review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Thank you. Respectfully, Andrew J. Sciarabba, P.E. Vice President STREAM COLLABORATIVE STREAM Collaborative architecture+landscape architecture dpc 123 S.Cayuga St Suite 201 Ithaca,New York 14850 ph:607.216.8802 www.streamcolab.com 4 A3Adns d0 3W11 1V NOI1VlnWnS3V 3a ONV MONS ,,O6-8 (b w Npuon�I of Holad 01313 NI l,Jla3A '�3N0 NOI1V001 31VWIXObddV 3HV N032i3H NMOOSMOHS S311H11n �iV (S slNswnNow � S�R3S),N aNV SNOI1VAN-ISSO Sd0 ?dad HidON 3nb1 SI Wn1Va �V1NOZl'JOH (Z f /" „XVM3AIH0„ dnOINOo 133bis NIVId Hinos aNV aVoa Valw 3 bo NOIl33Sa3iNl / / O (aoo3 ]Hi iV 200:i iN3WnNOW O�3S).N bad -9 aVN SI SNOIIVn3�3 3o WnlVa (� /.� �a CONCRETE IA7VA SVO-Q S31oN / \y ��� -- STAIR /" `N, ]A�VA N31dM-[ / ,Va / /� snsde ..o: I _ NOIS OIl1dX11-� � �� 0�t ti� � .,n1 9 03�38b� `oNN01 ?Yb'1S NON1- 1NI0d ciiindW03- 0 �- oN3O3� N � TKEESTO DE, REMOVED REMOVE GRAVEL , ICI I •.���� - ' / \ 0) '/ DRIVE 4' 0"SCREEN FENCE SET ASPHALT PARKING ON TOP OF RET WALL / z.V w 771M // 9-L-�:6 ON dVh Xdl / Ln / SNIdOiINOW / N\\ OLZ/3gg / 7 4 1' 0" 49' 0' 37 0 1 0 7 5' BIKE RACK PAINTSTRIPES o v / R ° _Y o ° - - - as 0"SCREEN FENCE SET z ��d o co------ -- - / -----_ o ON TOP OF RET WALL a o CONCRETE REMOVE CONCRETE- -- - -- �` U-1 U' RETAINING WALL '---_RETAINING WALL o - - -- ----_---- ----/-o/sr_---_----- -- �< _ -3-S / - g o� M----- g o S/ A ON 90S �� au 10'-10" sdd --- -- 0•66 3snoH In N N:1 1noNV -1FT1 i FT1 3M �' ddN3s L--- BLDGC BLDGD I o t,-L-L'6ON cbVh Xb'1 - ("O d) 131AV ----------------- - --------------aVt------------- ------- TVM 313d )NO3 / ————— — - ' ——- -- -- -- -- --————————— — — — — \i C\� -- -- -- -- -- J LU ———— CT WOOD I sre ' O ---_ _-- - --- - - - \i in CONCRETE RETAINING WALL DECK Ln 0/0 z REMOVE /- - - ---- - - - ALL_B o - ' X oneRUSH V o SL �6ON d� W L-S6'ON dVW Xdl AND SMALL TREES 19'-8" -ISM Lo Qoo-o9gsti __ 110 � a I N) V3VHl1 to ,vi1�------- - 0 S UjN�V BLDG A - BLDG B HSV - -- ---- - - _-qz - - - - - �\Oo de a � b"-$ 00 REMOVE PROPERTY LINE ___ - --- --- -zz. 2 ---- \ \— - - _ / / / _--- ���ZD---------- \ \ --_------- -- --- - ------ ' \ � REVISED PROP LINE PER (2) BIKE RACKS,TYP � o ' — --- _- ----Ott-- ---\ - ----- -_--- \\ --------------- 2.15.2012SURVEY LUawn �N.o:. ' 9 0,6 Y 4 a — s ba �0nn 0d zzt=n3 3 E 133z11s V�n/,Vo Hinos ❑ FORMER PROPERTY LINE J 7 0" ❑ a :=w111 NEW CONCRETE nt e V 'lS a3JN3dS 1S3M 30 m 1S VJl,lVO H1nG NOI=dSH31N1 1V NI�VB H 1JV�� NI,VB I I � 0 3N11 1S3M 01 + D-, [ 1NV (]).H ]VU NO aV3HMOW8 ZZ •d b/HSbSS3• ?J03 E cs:v=wla WALK nla � ss3dSNl do3 � to 1N3W3SV3 3aIM ,b v � ,n9l�=WIH ,9'9lb=WIN �IH�� SPENCER STREET N Q Lu r 4 N N I N LL 3NSN00 N fl- - - __ __ __ __ Ln Ln 0 LLJ 1= \ SITE DEMO PLAN \ \` LAYOUT PLAN o D 3 1"=20'-0" D 1"=20--0" REVISIONS o A DESCRIPTION DATE v Q Project# 2015001 Date 9/17/2015 oo SITE PLAN REVIEW 0 SITE DEMO AND LAYOUT cn PLANS L101 1"=20'-0" D C B A GENERAL SHEET NOTES - PLANTING STREAM COLLABORATIVE 1. CONSULT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON SHAPE OF BED EDGE&PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. ONLY NURSERY-GROWN PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE.ALL TREES,SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI Z60.1,AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. STREAM Collaborative 3. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE EXCAVATED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWO FEET AND REPLACED WITH AMENDED TOPSOIL architecture+landscape CONSISTING OF 1 PART SCREENED TOPSOIL,1 PART COMPOST AND 1 PART SAND. architecture dpc 4. TREE PITS IN LAWN TO BE EXCAVATED TO DEPTH OF ROOT BALL PLUS SIX INCHES AND SHALL BE THREE TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL. 123 S.Cayuga St Suite 201 5. DECIDUOUS TREES SHALL HAVE A CALIPER OF AT LEAST 2 1/2 INCHES AT BREAST HEIGHT(DBH)AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. Ithaca,New York 14850 6. ALL TREES IN LAWN AREAS TO RECEIVE FIVE-FOOT DIAMETER MULCH RINGS. ph:607.216.8802 7. INSTALL 3 INCHES OF NATURAL SHREDDED BARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS. www.streamcolab.com 4 8. NO PLANTS OR TREES SHALL BE LOCATED BENEATH BUILDING OVERHANGS. 9. SUN/SHADE LAWN MIX-DEEP TILL ANY COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALL 4"OF AMENDED TOPSOIL. 10.WARRANTY ALL PLANT MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF 1-YEAR BEYOND THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. 2"-3"SINGLE GROUND HARDWOOD BARK MULCH PLANTING MIX-TOPSOIL(1 PART), COMPOST(1 PART),SAND(1 PART) SPADED EDGE-TYPICAL 4"TOPSOIL FOR LAWNS i TW463.00 /_/ COMPACTED PLANTING MIX / ) // - - - -- ai / BENEATH ROOT BALL TO PREVENT SETTLING BW458.00 / 458.00 \ / G O TYPICAL PERENNIAL PLANTING TW 458.00 / 458.75 BS458.00 �� \' /./ RAG HPL 5'-0" TW458.00 6 3 RIM456.50 1 /" 1900SF MEADOW SEED MIX � � /- � 2"SINGLE GROUND HARDWOOD -g;v- � /� �� (2)VIRGINIA CREEPER TO (2)VIRGINIA CREEPER TO BARK MULCH _ TS457.00 - ; -- GROW UP WALL&FENCE GROW UP WALL&FENCE O _ > PLANTING MIX-TOPSOIL(1 PART), C SPADED EDGE-TYPICAL COMPOST(1 PART),SAND(1 PART) � 00-TW458. _ � - --457.00 457.00 -�/,- - - - ; ---BW448.00-- - LA _ RIM450.91 TS451.00 _ -- --' �� ///// � ZZ _-- �- MDE MDE ¢ COMPACTED PLANTING MIX m = 4 4 SETTLING LU -BENEATH ROOT BALL TO PREVENT 444.00+/- �n_is _ a p - Uj BLDG C BLDG D - - - - - BLDG C BLDG D °C o 3RD FFE=460.50 3RD FFE=460.50 444.00+/- 0 0 2ND FFE=451.50 2ND FFE=451.50 - -- - -- o -MDE PAV PAv MDE III III III III III III III III III-1ST FFE=44"I M440.41 1ST FFE=441.50 1 g ,-- R - 12 12 19 440.50 _ 3X ROOT BALL a TS440.50' � 440.50 ad MEADOW MIX i f - -- -- - -- - - - 441.00 - - � y_ _ _ _ _ 441_0o MH � W,,, �,, � ^ TYPICAL TREE PLANTING -- 1800SF MEADOW TW437.00 7437.00 �, SEE 1/2"=1-0 - �--- - TW437.00 -� A D MIX �, �, BW433.50 a a � a RIM 437.00 a a a GRAVEL MULCH RIM 433.41- TS433.50 GRAVEL MULCHUj U ------ TW428.00 i 65424.00 P8v �' P8v PLANTING SCHEDULE _ BLDG A BLDG B ,;, BLDG A BLDG B JHB RIM 423.83 ° a KEY QTY. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME INSTALLED SIZATURE SIZE COMMENTS 3RD FFE=443.00 3RD FFE=443.00 gg .,z I 1 3g� •,g - 14 E M W 2ND FFE=434.00 d _ a "°tea T5423.75 2ND FFE=434.00 � MDE ° daa' MDE HPL HPL ORNAMENTAL GRASS JHB - 424.00 1ST FFE=424.00 9- d 420.00 1ST FFE=424.00 - 41 HPL HPL 9 9 g 5 5 PAV 40 Panicum Virgatum'Shenandoah' Shenandoah Switchgrass #3 CONTAINER 4'tall,2'wide 421.50 423.00 - y 5 5 o - - __ _ -- - SHRUB-DECIDUOUS / - - O O O O HPL 23 Hydrangea paniculata'Limelight' LIMELIGHT HARDY HYDRANGEA #5 CONTAINER 6 -- 'WIDE,8'TALL SALT TOLERANT o __ _ - - - 416.00+/- _ BS416.00+/- --____ ----- O O RAG 6 Rhus aromatic FRAGRANT SUMAC #3 CONTAINER 1.5'TALL&6'WIDE DEER RESISTANT E - -- - - - - B-EVE EE m tr a ba - -. a 4d SHRU RGR N a d a a d a JHB 55 Juniperus horizontalis'Bar Harbor' BAR HARBOR CREEPING JUNIPER #3 CONTAINER 4'Wide SALT TOLERANT Q P a - - - @) [] 0 MDE 66 Microbiota decussata RUSSIAN ARBORVITAE #3 CONTAINER 5'WIDE SHRUBBY GROUNDCOVER, � U °c g r 160SF SEDUM 160SF SEDUMi�, SEMI DEER RESISTANT t wi visda H��r",_ N�ISVPN H-)I, r 2 F GROUND COVER GROUND COVER TREE-DECIDUOUS PAC 1 Platanus x acerifolia LONDON PLANE TREE 2-1/2"CALIPER 70'TALL Nt G�b=wia � `-'��=wia TREE-EVERGREEN I °; g y =wia s 91b_Aia PCE 12 Pinus cembra SWISS STONE PINE 6'TALL 15'TALL LL cLn Q TREE-ORNAMENTAL O w AGA 4 Amelanchier x grandiflora'Autumn Brilliance' APPLE SERVICEBERRY 2-1/2"CALIPER 20'TALL O N CV] 6 Chionanthus Virginicus FRINGE TREE 2 1/2"CALIPER 14'TALL _ Ln VINE-DECIDUOUS 1� PQV 4 Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER #2 CONTAINER N/A STAKE TO ENCOURAGE v VERTICAL GROWTH ALONG E WALL 0 REVISIONS NOTE:ADD'L GROUND COVERS,PERENNIALS AND ANNUALS BY OWNER 0 0 DESCRIPTION DATE GRADING PLAN D3 D1 1"=20'-0" 1PLANTING PLAN =20-0 Q Project# 2015001 Date 9/17/2015 ao SITE PLAN REVIEW 0 rz GRADING AND PLANTING Cn PLANS L102 As indicated D C B A STREAM COLLABORATIVE STREAM Collaborative architecture+landscape architecture dpc 123 S.Cayuga St Suite 201 Ithaca,New York 14850 ph:607.216.8802 www.streamcolab.com 4 521 S CAYUGA STREET +/-50'-0"ROW PROJECT LIMIT +/-50'-0" ROW 216 W SPENCER STREET S CAYUGA STREET WEST SPENCER STREET 3 IBUILDING C & D PARKING Uj LU EL.468.00 , , , �El BUILDING A& B I Ll V / LIU 111 R LU z U Z w 0 EL.415.50 0 z s Q 0 N LU _ F-- Y U LLLr)Q p LU �. N r**4 U Qj ;_ 0 REVISIONS 0 s 0 A DESCRIPTION DATE v D Q Project# 2015001 Date 9/17/2015 ao SITE PLAN REVIEW Ln 0 N SITE SECTION L501 1/16"=V-0" D C B A V o'h! POLE MOU STREAM - TR RMER n � COLLABORATIVE HSb « "SEG)Ol _ '-'• " , 1p MAT-CHLINE `� ��� ' , _ -99 b-- +�6'��/ 1 STREAM Collaborative � ` architecture+landscape / ° architecture dpc OVERH SERVICE 2�(BY NYSEG _ / 9 123 S.Cayuga St Suite 201 V / �� S / ) I Ithaca,New York 14850 lsnoo� «z1 ph:607.216.8802 01 / X\ � � Fi �p / � � � , 9t �_ \ I www.streamcolab.com 4 — _ ' e -® � lS 'ON - T POLE MOU _ _ I 0 TR RMER HSb 01 "SEG) �' I \ �SnOH _ / �� I I T.G. MILLER, P.0 MATCHLINE `� ��� , —99-b—� \ (-�6 S �� v�/ ' / !y I \ I ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 203 NORTH AURORA STREET ° °= I ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 -7 - �I� H� , \ WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM / \/ \ 607-272-6477 D.I. (CL 52) COMBINED I \ \ �p / v �� — WATER SERVICE W I \� s / DRAINAGE INLET - /A180 \ 2'X2' GRATE (TYP OF 2) / \ \v ONIa011 W � GNnoj ECONDAR ELECTRIC .S S / 1) PV CONDUIT _ - �o S AND CABLING TYP) d / / `EC V - E / / E E aR�OM E E / — — — — 3 I — E E F / CONNECT TO EXISTING N — SANITARY LATERAL AT 9 0 9 0 O N _ — - — — — EANUUs_ 3snOH _ L- -J DOMESTIC SERVICE ° —� ONn of S i W -� - `P) d _ FIRE SERVICE Uj / too-ZLL999 HOUSE TRA�� \ LU / (-o*a) J�� `IOIWv 'T bZZbW — (Ty P of 4) 0t - - S N4ARY MANH E �WM -31-3aJN00 4 - - d - m (IYP Off) ��. II � � s sa I ° /w ,0 _ ONbj 1NVDVA \ dbW �,2 L(� U.D. U.D. U.D. U. U.D. U.D. mCjv LU 2 U / Q ` a H 01Uj 00 E , - HOLOcd E BIORETENTION w �' I �\ 011ddFILTER (lYP) Hsb �N01S z 0000 ��bM -J13�00 d0NJ DRAINAGE GINLETRATE - - d - e ��`g 30 1NIbW 2�Od6'fbiLV - �� \ ����� Q O 110 �Hl 1 1N3W (TYP�F 5 — \ -� 1N-3 bWaJcJ' a-3SOdoa � o � � Ln O w\ 7Cfi LL ONINIb1��1 HS _ — — — CL T (TYP) 0N0a --•=-yl ON00 _ _ _ 2 0 100-�'1689� � bObHll d0 �lll0 — — — � � - - - - - - - - - - - � � \ � � � �N�JS \ —� � N U a Z — _ s Sd3�S 'dH a10� 0j — — REVISIONS �� i V -d` �� , -- t - 4 - ° d _ d�- - d" _ - — s — A DESCRIPTION DATE �— J �— NSA Project# 2015001 NI 3��I1S ONIl _ is 9/17/2015 1S vonAvj-�OS�- ° 1N3WJSb3 30M _n Date \ \ J �l � SITE PLAN REVIEW �NI� 1S.3M Ol �,S�8�'1 � SL 'ZZ�=/1373 •13.3�J1S bOn.lbO \ � � S S -0S S �S S S S S \ �S =W I SITE UTILITY N0I133SLl31Nl lb' \ M � M M M•: M M � PLAN M 1NVaGAH -ill NO ab.3HM0a b M M M M M RAPHI SCALE W 81 \A IVEST S��� M S--PZ-1VCjo 20 30 C 10 2 d 1°=10-0° D C B A PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Planning&Development Board Declaration of Lead Agency Site Improvements Site Plan Review 416 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr.Blvd. September 22,2015 WHEREAS. 6 NYCRR, Part 617, of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code,Environmental Quality Review require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS. State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS.the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Approval for site improvements, including a 3-car parking lot, to be located at 416 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd.,and WHEREAS. the applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment, and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of a rear deck and stairs, connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, the addition of a curb-cut on State St. and a circular drive, the addition of a 3-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416- 418 East State Street, so that 37 parking spaces would be allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission(ILPC), and WHEREAS. this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), §176-4 (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), §617.4(11), and is subject to environmental review,now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project, to be located at 416 E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd. in the City of Ithaca. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: 0 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM — Part III Project Name:Site Improvements—416 E. State St./M.L.K,Jr. Blvd. Date Created: 9/2/15 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to convert the rear portion of the existing commercial space into a bar, expand and renovate the existing office space, create one apartment and provide storage. Exterior renovations include construction of a rear deck and stairs connecting the back entrance to the adjacent parking area, addition of a curb-cut on State St. and a circular drive, addition of a 3-car parking area, walkways, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 off-street parking spaces. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 E. State Street, so that 37 parking spaces are allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. The project is in the B-4 Zoning District and the East Hill Historic District. The project requires variances for existing area deficiencies and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) or staff-level approval from the City Historic Preservation Officer. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO") and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is subject to environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON WATER No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON DRAINAGE No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON AIR No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON PLANTS&ANIMALS No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES No impact anticipated. Page 1 of 3 IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES The proposed project is in the East Hill Historic District and will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ILPC or staff-level approval from the City Historic Preservation Officer. No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The proposed circular drives will require one additional curb-cut on E. State St./M.L.K.,Jr. Blvd. The new bar, office spaces, and apartment require 40 off-street parking spaces. There are three parking spaces on site in the front yard of 416-418 E. State Street. The applicant states a Memorandum of Agreement is being signed with Gateway Plaza, located directly south of 416-418 E. State Street, so that 37 parking spaces are allocated to the applicant under a shared parking agreement. Zoning requires that off-site parking be provided at a maximum distance of 500 feet from the property. Although the proposed location conforms to this requirement, concerns have been expressed about the safety of this location. In a memorandum, dated July 17, 2015, from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning to Charles Pyott, City of Ithaca Office Assistant, the County made the following recommendation: We recommend disapproval of the variance because the proposed project would encourage pedestrian crossing of State Street in an area that presents a significant potential pedestrian risk. We also note that the proposed on-site parking could encourage, if not require, backing onto State Street in an area with very heavy traffic. This should be avoided. Together, these two factors would pose a safety concern on this busy State highway route. The project is under review by the City Transportation Engineer. IMPACT ON ENERGY No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE &ODORS The Lead Agency has concerns about potential impacts on the surrounding residential neighbors resulting in the conversion of the ground-floor space into a bar and music venue. The Lead Agency is concerned about noise, smoke, and odors from the designated outdoor gathering and smoking area, as well as the proposed deck that, due to its location immediately outside the bar entrance, will likely be used by patrons for that same purpose. Page 2 of 3 Potential mitigations could include the following: • Relocating outdoor smoking/gathering area as far away from the residential neighbors as possible— e.g., in the front parking area, near(or replacing)the northernmost parking space • Removal of the deck at the rear entrance in order to discourage gathering in that location • Signage clarifying non-smoking areas The Lead Agency is also concerned about noise from the bar having negative impact on neighbors. The applicant must submit documentation from a licensed sound professional demonstrating the anticipated noise levels outside the building will conform to the City's Noise Ordinance. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH No impact anticipated. IMPACT ON GROWTH &CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project requires Area Variances for existing deficiencies. In order to convert the unoccupied space on the first floor to the new permitted uses, the applicant must obtain variances for existing deficiencies. The property at 416-418 East State Street has existing deficiencies pertaining to lot coverage, side yard, and other side yard setbacks. Percentage of lot coverage is 60%; allowed is 50%. The building also is deficient in side yard and other side yard setbacks. The side yard to the west of the building is 0.02 feet; required is 10 feet. The other side yard to the east of the building is 0.1 feet; required is 5 feet. The Lead Agency has concerns about potential impacts on the surrounding residential neighbors resulting in the conversion of the ground-floor space into a bar and music venue. See Impacts from Noise and Odors. No impact anticipated. Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas,Senior Planner Page 3 of 3 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review CEQR Resolution—AMENDED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Hotel Ithaca Modernization 222 S.Cayuga St. City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board September 22,2015 WHEREAS: on March 27, 2012, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that a proposed project involving an expansion and Area Variance of the former Holiday Inn, located at 222 S. Cayuga St., would result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS: the above-referenced proposed project included the demolition of the existing north, south, and west guestroom wings (110 rooms) and construction of two new additions: a one-story 13,845-SF banquet and meeting facility on the north side of the main building; and a 100'-tall 10-story(including rooftop complex) tower with a 9,190-SF footprint, featuring 115 new guestrooms, a rooftop entertainment complex, and the relocation of the existing hotel restaurant to the ground floor, fronting Cayuga Street, and six 2-bedroom units of employee housing. Site development included: two new curbcuts to make a conference center drop-off, reconfiguration of the parking areas, resulting in a decrease of 21 parking spaces; removal of 9 mature trees and much of the existing landscaping along Cayuga Street;new landscaping and sidewalks; lighting; and signage, and WHEREAS:the applicant has since redesigned the project and now seeks Site Plan Approval for a new proposal, and WHEREAS. the new proposal (now named Hotel Ithaca) is for construction of a five-story wing with first- and second-floor connections to the existing building. These connections will create a new pre-function area on the north side of the existing ballroom, new break-out rooms, and a new fitness center. Site improvements will include new landscaping, walkways, and site furnishings. Vehicular circulation will remain the same,but parking throughout the site will be reorganized,resulting in a reduction from 106 to 97 spaces. Site demolition will include removal of the north and west multi-story wings, as well as paving and some landscaping. The project is in the CDB-100 Zoning District and requires Design Review. This project requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). This project does not require an Area Variance, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), §176-4 B.(1) (h.)(4)and(1), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA"), §617.4(11), and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7(e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency has determined that changes are proposed for the project and determined that no significant adverse impacts will occur, and WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on September 22, 2015 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 3, prepared by Planning staff, drawings titled "Existing Site Plan (C-1)," "Proposed Site Plan (C-3)," "Proposed First Floor Plan (A-1)," "Proposed Second Floor Plan (A- 2),""Proposed 3rd-5th Floor Plan(A-3),""Proposed Elevations (A-4,A-5,A-6, &A-7);"and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Board acting as lead Agency has determined the proposed changes result in a project significantly smaller in scale,which will therefore have no new impacts not previously considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby determine the proposed Hotel Ithaca Modernization Project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Moved: Second: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: 0 ` NTH CITY OF ITHACA y.,.. ...:eq ,\ rd ,.D 108 E. Green Street— 3 Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING,ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT O�oRa '" PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558 TO: Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: Planning & Development Board DATE: September 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Comments for Zoning Appeals 2994, 2999, 3003, 3004, &3005 On September 22, 2015, members of the Planning and Development Board discussed the above-listed Zoning Appeals and agreed to forward the following recommendations: APPEAL#2994 215-221 W. SPENCER STREET Area Variances Appeal of Noah Demarest, for PPM Homes, owner of 215-221 W. Spencer Street, for an Area Variance from Section 325-20 F. (a) [1], Rear Yard Parking Setbacks, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The owner proposes to construct four 3-story residential buildings containing three units each on a steeply sloped site between West Spencer and West Cayuga Streets. Because of the site's topography, the applicant proposes to locate the 12 required off-street parking spaces for this project in the property's rear yard, where there is access to Cayuga Street. However, Section 325-20 F. (a) [1] does not allow parking in a property's required rear yard setback. The rear yard setback requirement is 31 feet and the applicant's design requires parking in 77% of the required rear yard. The property at 215-221 W. Spencer Street is located in an R-3b zone where the proposed residential use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board feels that the unique attributes of the site (steeply sloped with street frontage at both the front and back of the site)present a large barrier to locating the parking such that it will not require a variance. The Board has worked with the applicant to mitigate concerns about visual/aesthetic impact of the proposed parking location. The applicant has agreed to install fencing (see Perspectives L001, dated 816115) and landscaping to block view of parking lot from Cayuga Street adjacent property owners. The Board recommends granting this appeal. APPEAL#2999 1106 N. CAYUGA STREET Area Variances Appeal Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, for Sarah and Craig Cummins, owners of 1106 North Cayuga Street for variances from Section 325-81 Columns 7, 10, 11, and 12, Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, and Side Yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 1of4 The applicant proposes to add a 505-SF addition to the existing single-family home at 1101 North Cayuga. This one-story addition will be located in the property's rear yard. However, before the addition can be constructed, the applicant must remove an existing 355 SF deck. Though the addition will meet zoning setback requirements, it will increase the existing lot coverage deficiency from 36.2% to 40.76%. The allowed lot coverage is 35%. Furthermore, the existing building does not meet several district regulation requirements. The lot width is 32.9 feet; required is 35 feet. The front yard is 3 feet; required is 10 feet. The side yard is 2.2 feet; required is 10 feet. The property at 1106 N. Cayuga Street is in an R-2b Use District, where the single-family home is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit can be issued. The Board did not identify any long-term planning issues and recommends granting this appeal. APPEAL#3003 209-215 DRYDEN ROAD Design Variances Appeal of John Novarr for 209-215 Dryden Road Associates for variances from Section 325-45.2 G. (2.) (12) and 325-45.2 G. (3.) (b), distance between entries and chamfered corner, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to develop a new six-story building at the corner of Dryden Road and Linden Avenue, located in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) Zoning District. This building will be the home for Cornell University's Johnson School of Management Executive Education program. The proposed building design incorporates classrooms, offices, and meeting spaces on all six stories of the building and includes an open three-story atrium with a stairway visible to pedestrian traffic along Dryden Road. However, to meet the school's programmatic needs, the applicant is requesting two variances from the MU-2 Zoning District's design requirements. The applicant requests a variance from Section 325-45.2 G. (2.) (12), the requirements that the distance between functioning street-facing entries be limited to a maximum of 60 feet apart, and that those commercial entries be functional and useable during business hours. The proposed building has two street-facing fagades, one on Dryden Road, and one on Linden Avenue. The fagade on Dryden Road is 122' 8" long and has one- two-door entry located between 8 and 14 feet from the fagade's northwest corner; required are two doors along this face of the building. On Linden Avenue, one door is located approximately 16.5 feet to 20 feet south of the northeast corner of the building and 64' from the building's southeast east corner; required are two doors on this face of the building. While the entry door on Dryden Road meets the requirement that entries must be functioning and useable during business hours, the door on Linden Avenue serves a stair exit and is not intended for ingress access. The applicant also requests a variance from Section 325-45.2 G.(3) (b), requiring a building on a corner lot in the MU-2 Zoning District have a chamfered corner or be setback a minimum of 5 feet from both street frontages. The proposed building is set back 7 feet from Dryden Road, but the Linden Avenue setback varies from 2 to 0 feet. The applicant claims the slight gain in visibility or pedestrian access at the corner would cause a significant loss of useable interior space and a greater construction cost due to increased structural complexity. The proposed building at 209-215 Dryden Road is in the MU-2 Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that Area Variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 2of4 The Board supports granting this appeal for two reasons:(1)regarding the doors, the Board feels that the design of the building meets the intent of the Collegetown Area Form Districts zoning. The extensive glazing on its bottom floors provides an animated street experience, as views are into well-lighted gathering and event areas; and(2)regarding the required chamfered corner on Dryden and Linden, the Board feels the building meets the intent of the ordinance on this corner. This corner transitions from a high-density mixed-use district to a lower- density residential district. There is for less vehicular, pedestrian, and bike traffic at this corner than at the corner of Dryden and College Ave., where a chamfer is also required. The bottom floors of the building are pushed back from the property line an additional 2 feet in excess of the required setback—which achieves sufficient visibility and openness(as intended by the ordinance)in this location. APPEAL#3004 705 N.AURORA STREET Area Variance Appeal of Joseph Steuer, owner of 701 N. Aurora Street, for variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4 and 14/15, Parking, and Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested a Lot Line Adjustment from the Director of Zoning Administration for two of his contiguous properties located at 701 and 705 N. Aurora Street. The existing property at 705 N.Aurora Street is a two-family dwelling with a non-conforming accessory structure, which is located 2.9 feet from the rear yard property line. This accessory structure was granted a variance on March 10, 1986 (Appeal #1678) to the former property owner for an accessory use as a home office. As the new owner of 705 N. Aurora Street, the applicant wants to convert this structure into a studio apartment making it a second primary use on the lot. However,the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street does not have sufficient lot area for two primary uses. To resolve the lot size issue, the applicant proposes to consolidate a portion of the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street and its accessory use with the adjacent property at 701 N. Aurora Street. This will create an "L"-shaped parcel at 701 N. Aurora Street with sufficient lot area for two primary uses. The Director of Zoning Administration cannot adjust the lot lines of two contiguous lots, if it will create a new buildable lot or create a zoning deficiency in either lot. Both properties in their current configurations have a number of existing area deficiencies, but these deficiencies are not relevant to issuing a Lot Line Adjustment. While the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would cause the lot size at 705 N. Aurora Street to be reduced from 4,080 SF to 3,010 SF, the lot area requirement for the two-family dwelling is only 3,000 SF. Furthermore, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would create two deficiencies at 705 N. Aurora Street, lot coverage and depth of rear yard, compliant with respect to zoning regulations. Nevertheless, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will create new deficiencies for the property at 701 N. Aurora Street. The 4-bedroom single-family home at 701 N. Aurora Street requires two parking spaces. The studio apartment will increase the parking requirement to three off-street spaces. The property at 701 N. Aurora Street has no off-street parking. Furthermore, the Lot Line Adjustment will cause the property to have a deficient rear yard. In its current configuration, 701 N. Aurora Street has a compliant rear yard with a lot depth of 29'6". Consolidating the rear portion of the lot at 705 N. Aurora Street with the parcel at 701 N. Aurora Street would reduce the rear yard to 2.9 feet. 701 N. Aurora Street is required to provide a rear yard that has a depth of 26 feet. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 3of4 The properties at 701 and 705 N. Aurora Street are in the R-2b Use District where converting the former accessory structure to a one-unit dwelling is permitted. However, Section 290-1, "Lot Line Adjustment," requires that variances be granted before the Zoning Director issues a Lot Line Adjustment. The Board did not identify any long-term planning issues and recommends granting this appeal. The Board recognizes the need for new housing and supports the conversion of an existing structure into housing. APPEAL#3005 123-127, 133, 135-139 E. STATE STREET(HAROLD'S SQUARE) Area Variances Appeal of Scott Whitham for the owner, L Enterprises, LLC, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard Depth, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to develop a 140-foot tall, 11-story, mixed-use building of approximately 162,750 GSF, known as "Harold's Square." The building is designed to have commercial business on the ground floor, three stories of upper-story office space, 6 stories devoted to residential use, and an 11th-story penthouse with multi- purpose amenities. The residential portion of the building is in a tower that will be set back 62'8" setback or more from the building's four-story fagade facing the Commons. This tower will reach a height of no more than 140 feet. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and the other facing the Green Street Alley between the Commons and the Green Street garage. The applicant claims the size of the project necessitates using 100% of the lot for the building. However, District Regulations state that 100% lot coverage is allowed only when the required 10-foot rear yard is provided. As proposed, the project has no rear yard. The proposed project is located in the CBD-60/CBD-140 Use Districts where the uses of the proposed building are permitted. However, Sections 325-38 and 325-39 require Area Variances be granted before a Building Permit or a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. The Board granted Site Plan Approval for this project in August 2013 and granted a two-year extension to the approval in August 2015. The Board supports the project and recommends granting this appeal. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." 4of4 > - _": - _ --�k1q 1.1 4I1I j�0;,*-I�6I__1.b-%,__.I._1....L.�.�1; I,.--.-,�.A,;k�,.I L.-,�;�-',,l�,�:.-4__.�.-,,;..,;."1I,I,1,._",:,ll,'1:4`,I-Id;.i�M.71,��t N Z--a.,'��,��',.I,-,---tI.p,,._I-,,:I,..�1._-,I 1.l.,.-�_.-�I l�'I,-.1.�1__,l�...---,o:.._i�,1-�..k:.o-i-�1-I I�4-.-.s,,-1-.,I��,..,,.,4,I.�,.,"I-t-:-�.,__._%�,_-.",-..�_`-.,.-1,`4 I..-;#I.---' -*I-II:'-�,4-.0,�.�,,�,0._I-'-.,,-.,Im-.,,I,11�0"-.i-.-.-.I.�7,1",-.--�1 I-�I�,---Ai_i-."--.,P.I,.,-I.�II r.....�,.-11 N...:-)II.i-I V4-1E.7.-��.4 lI,.1-ivs...I-,:�1,,-I--I.�,,1�-iII-�.+I.I--'I?-.,-I",*,-"-_-��,II_�-P�1. -'l-I-"k�I-l:�,v--.II,w�I'-A.,,-i,W 1.-wI--II-:,I�*i,::.,I�-Wi;1.II,>1-q.I.-.,�"i.��I�.,---,-�.� ;.-,1.N,_e.i.�..",_,-.,,.&.�,.1I.,,----r.%.I_,r7-_-,-4-.�/f�-_`-Ii,..�I--I�,�.T4-.,..*,%I1l.-1.t 4-v-t 4-�,,i,4I.qI I,,'9,-..,-:t.1�-I-,.I-.a.0..�11,p I.�.'11,.�.-F1.,.�1---%Y._".,A.1?I,,.1-I,."i,,.l...i N:,.:.---m......... �wI��_II 1,�0 ft_1�_j_;.�V'.011--'I--2..C.I_7 I.".,I;I10�.,..ISI.1.�'*1,-I-f1-11W 4 I�,II.._,",l�!..IiI-I *I.,,,*.;I,II l�,rf.,_I=,,��.-"�.:�,o.�',i%,,.I.' �r_.-,-'1"*W,!.'I.V�.I.,-��l:P�i-1 1i:.I-i-:_'.1_I-*� *1I,.1,�;.I��"---��,%.,I-4Iti..�_;I-,--,-1.i I;,*"_!1�II.1I.1.",'.,'1...._1,,��,--",e."I.�4.,..-"0I 11 I.l'1---1 1...-r,-_1-_:,-_1.1'-t.1 sJ%I r,-,;47t�'.4.I1A I...,,.4,-lm 1 m-1�-i i,1 1-,�--11-I."_-1,,*II-.ii,I..-I,I.I.l11I.,--,,..#I'_.ff..�I.%.-.�`',k,.m 1I7b 1 II 41t_.:;.'n.-i-wI a.r_4 1 4A1 1 r,�I1_",'.,.:41r_;,r-II�i�-.0.%._'4,.,,-x,i e,iI*-,.,,,-,_.-�,7..' -.;_-I I 1-,I4e I,I,7�II,-�-.%%I r�R..._'_I,I-,%,,��.l'% "b'"o..I.��,1.t-I"*..�..I�.-i',.I_�,4-�I,-.d%.,,o_t,*.,'1�w._A_4�*I,t*.I.,i:._I.I.-.�.f 1 ��_.I.__._1_I.4-,1I",4-L II.,.,I'.1.*-I-1_I1�;..vI,Ii4i f9 7_t.,:II,'-.4�li._AI.�".I�4 1.I l-_,iIi:",l,t,.,,'$I .I;._,,-I-f�'i-..I.--1.I-I-+-�.-4I.I,:-�-�qI'1�.-1.,'I�,-14�1_I.7.�.i--.1,',I t I.��._,1�tr.1.,��1.II,.'�.1I. I.-1 A._1.":.1..I1.-m,11.-..,I,1 d 1�1i N,1F1 I.�-1 X 1..1.--,--1-J,1I- h _ I��1.wrrrrIl,.-'',l--.:l .,.�Ix.1I 0-.1-;;;;;;;-"..*i.14.EI _I XII4I .t---5.�'4,OI'...,..4 IIk,II.p-.-R,���,, .l0 * :.!•x �t<,. ..n ... r t' r i i r -O.m-PI _ -k -' 0,1 k'I.1..i.I.,- 1 F. Y „, , ..N,r' .. r. ' �s .- r I yL i v-q 4 , ,:.. b' \\\ Y.-.,> x t ; r - G �, s• . -- ::':�.: S::. .:: ;. .. .¢ : { �e :: ,M I'. > _ - GrwC J',. t .)L - s';. 5.ro�,A e', i , r r y. ; t •-- --- -__ --- __ -. __ 1 _. _ vww ._ - _ .- - - - - - - -iI - r n - ¢ y- -- - - - - - 7} t P t s;; 'r v $ , }'' yr a_., i-t.,. F - ��. =;t. -;' a - ' - p v: d+^ ,, 1 it . , r :�" - � � � � 1... .. i�, y' '� ,v F: E' .� is j ,f i, 1 V'- , , wa a z .4 w ,ri..�F' ., ,. �� ,.- r 4 . s e .... v - , - 4 �► ,,, . , y 4 Y 1� f� roS z tt , k :Y t -31 ✓ wry '�3 ii R S - •. L _ _ . - n Itr ��: 't '. ! _ _ , 1 r : . . ;:. t *F ... +- .. L... .. _ . 1I,'-I-M1�I `': - - .. _ .-- 11II*1�I-.,-,,14IaI w4-iw--6l,,�...--,- r !!Y f *, .�I II,.._,I.*1-t,t A,'1-I-'I_,1..I,,I 1.---. 4 «.` '` �, -o" !� a ! X E 1 w1- E y ¢: -aY : . 3., „.:-. y- r 7 -w, V , tii "cry,}y'':, it �, ,, -•. _ - S• a _' 3 - 4 c,. I. �i >. �, *: qr N ti . r v. I II�."��1.I-.Ia.pi.,.,'1 AI-d.-qI_I+1If.k.I..__l-Id 1'w&..4. ,. iret , ? '.'-.,, . _ . . . ,� -} y3`;y. �,i... : .. +'E.-� ..y�; - •,rl„ 1. - Mu g r 9 . U J. t s,q,r�ygyagtg p "i -'6.: ry _ y. -- T-,. +. . a r,,. I - _ - : :.. o-s: I -c y {y s. w ry per. +; * n, - -_ - - ram. _ *. -I�•} F, :,:pp *' I , IiI.A0, 11 V� 4 p y .; . Y. 4, R 1 .. .. i 'k f A� m , - w - P ..-; '. -t#, - w .•ice...- _ a_ , ':r. ._ _. ;yy.., ,a�/.M. ,-. v1p, Lam°`. -'4 ,l i / - - y - _ 'F - r +' . . °+S .; x I ^fit:- k ,. 1 5 ». �� { �- rr,. 0 �s i.. - y,,� #As 4L ,-...-...I,.:.r�1,If.-tII--�1,- I10e I-1�I-.1I�zi"i ai.-,�.I_Ii-..._�-:',-1,'I��1 ",ffi-R4'-A.I-_I-11 Fi* - .. -. .. .,:..._ ., ifs 1 1.-�.-1".I..--, ,:r.--1.*-,._�,_..":0I,.I1.::::.,.I�1 1 I�,-I:,r .A � -.--t r .f. .4 r -4 t • 4 Yam+ 5 r; P h_,,,",�.I....AI,:.I.-III-i_.X*I._I,IiI.. .-Z.l".i.-ll.,..-,-'I:,..II''_I�,1IL-k-,,',-Ii.-..I 1� y, ay. ., / , - ,, r _ _.. - _ . r- .* -'-_ t It In .. .. #gyp a h - - --_ r "iw�'�'a..:". _d.-.t "4''t--.- - .1 'd �: M _ _ _ Lam,,,. - - - .�5�7I .. `.f_ F .. _ ..a fir• +:. • -;. „ -mot„- 7 t - t " ' _ .. �, fE xa r t _ _ f >j;. , , - }'-i : t i.• a s, .."'.... 71�F `f : _ ,,. '.i _ _10 W, _ 1,,7>l J-f o-�i'I.;..,ry;.-• - , _.. '.� f'y,. b i - .. -t •Q d' w 0_ c r r ..r �i • t a , S 4-, - - --. ' ,:. z,:.::- �, I. • r ..F _';_ - _ - {, ;ter , x' _ a j�a _ : ._% ffin ti: +AR- 0�, -;4 _ ^ - yam,_ `'a"' �• a K ! a. . fie' 0 r wi . €. _ z;: - ., - . , 4 ;i? _ Y .N # : .tl } ,1-§-_II 1 I.',1 f�5�,',I,1I...tt-.!1."_..-,.."�:,I,",ll,1 p x 4,II;.,I,_.k-"�"'-r,1,.,1,.-.1_e.I-:��_.'.`�':.*.:..I--i-'4_...-..,-,lll,-1..�&'m,I.-v-.III-,�1I.�I�m I,1,,...,.I,._,"-i._,.I,, 1.I%1�-.'._,,4 tL_,1-.-i t,.�.-I�,I-1._,I_1 11 II:.1,.I!-17,91.-*.:1�,,:.--...,.!!- _e4 II�I.�I�o.iI'I,r..-.'.4II-:1 1.._li,V.,0f I-I'."_?,I1, 0 1-,,,-I,,P�-i,�I-'�.-i�i,.,-...-:�"-,......I,�..14..,N1�,,..-%1%_0,0i.,-,'I-*.1.,,.- i,10,_ -.,� ,,"- f..-.�#_.,-"!.,I..j-I-I-I--;_1-.I I--1__1-.-�7a*I':k-Il..ot_.,_�I.��.-" -n_-11-,,��,._�II��-,*.,z, .1 t--r,._i,-.,1 I0.m ..���- -I*,rLL 1%:._--...1_;_U, 11I ,I 4�" .:.1.-I,i.�,�-I_I.,,S&_-.%_-.-.,'_I.. 11 III"_,i.I*.,QI-1.._1 I I-,-..1I-1 I...- -A-,,,.1._-J.1--o1_,-�_*%I._,-�*j.l--I-II 1p*I-1 1-.t.�-.-�1._�lI,.&.I,-I,p.*I_.-I.'_I I-.-,.a*,.,--- J�4rI_�_�a II4.-�f il,N.-,.1; >:, �: :® - _.w -- I'.�1:,I.P.:.-_I1I.1d-_11_*`I 0,Ra.1fI-.;-�l.-.Il-_�*F�I'"�1 I;I.4A-,_�I 4l1 i-.,-,;,���.I_.-%I_:.�:-N r II-.1-,I."-.,I I"--l:"WIt%k.6W-,Ir�.I�II.:%.,L:_-.IoI--i.,,1:�.- .'!,,-..,f.1_1"-�..f4,1-,�,-1�I.,1.,�_,-__,..,.�- ,-4.-,�,.,"...,�._;;.IiIl.-?*I-�--1,1 4wI I,-*.*-',I1.,-_ ,-�-'-.' 'y.1-,.-.1,' �4"I.l_f_I-'.f I_-_-l..�-I.I�0J,�,-,,.IO1;I�.!...,.'I:-r T.-�.1I P.l a-.I.I o_�.�--_,,,ve�.-,.,.._�I 1,.I.,_4tF.-.;1 I'W I.i �.__I:�. .,.--,r#;I-*�,-��..-h'.�I 0'I d-I 04 0I1 1I o___,f._�I-'_,4J.&..III,�.4-..�.I.I.11;a_.1I1.�1.d�.�.--_1_.4*""1-1_1I -. _ i. t �Lyur k, - r s, . r mo-� - a�F_ . phew. f:1'_ : J1 •.::. - . :. w x s ,}� - f E .*�'.,. r „ 5 _ - 4 AV iA ' - _. _ I' r {., � y ' e . f �: #' : .1t,ir ",. +: ! .A awe, �,;�. . , i 3a - 1. ,. < �.r +. � 9 .3 r- :N. t'- Xi "�" ,'--l. -, Y.,� -- ;-ram.. !' - '?E . �... _ , a :.:a.... :"' - '" �: �-a�,�� Y is 4; ,. ;. '� _ i iL ? 'T -1 lk a-. ..3:y1 . , :;. .. - ''� i+,- - r.. Y r y -�y. a .-:.3 ilw'r'�' �y� .yam. .. ,r ,; .'YN--e.:p'eS,,, 1d- _ _ it fg} i :#-, .rf.s,„�l�F It - "fi a. _ -"k y)r -'^t - `'rev,: -y - , .. - _' ., YA ,� - 4 f1:'3%Kl ,. - %A .: :S'As. ,i',7. "'R'Y _ti ��+'4,_ YF a -. i' y y.'�T .. :. ... ,: Syr - ! ,,. L: z i r��i a. - j: -+- -- - _ - -- -- - -- - _. • 4 ': >, r y, J f. _ - ...,,f'.� ,- ,_.fir _ _ -- v ,.,_, s s ,t •: ,# ,. .. - +fix } : a. d , ,, .' r I..::. �. a, ,i N ,: k . `- art. ` . ._.. c:` . - _ _ _ '- - fie,;.' " _ - r - t, = . e� k&q t _ ,r i�{ " _�t - r- 1, �i.,� 1. y v " t �:.. " :^ ti ! _.„°".r.-w: ,� M,•..., 4 a .� , .:fir; __ i,as�l•:" "Y:. - la':. '..,y, fi� ....... _ . �y .a : - - y r.-y} - r� - :: : _ .. •- ..-I owl p ' z �: i * TROWBRIDGE ". .. a • WOLF MICHAELS 11 I • • 1; .- '. 1 { .ti' ti 45.9 in-Bicyclist Center of Grovity_ µ___ h 4 1 i- FRONT ELEVATION-CASCADILLA AVENUE SOUTH SECTION FACING EAST-CASCADILLA AVENUE SOUTH NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD BRIDGE RAILING-5-RAIL GALVANIZED STEEL 56"HIGH FIVE-RAIL OPTION REQUIRED IF SITED ADJACENT TO A DESIGNATED BIKEWAY(I.E.PROPOSED ITHACA BIKE BOULEVARD) -z11 =c IW i { i FRONT ELEVATION-CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH SECTION FACING WEST-CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD BRIDGE RAILING-4-RAIL GALVANIZED STEEL 42"HIGH FOUR-RAIL OPTION(MINIMUM REQUIREMENT) l CASCADILLA CREEKWAY ,r, ��� En�,n ���n� NEIK YORK '' `' ! 11 STATE or Department of Architecture • CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH AND SOUTH SECTIONS BETWEEN N.CAYUGA STREET AND N.TIOGA STREET raoRTUNItY MICHAELS Transportation Environmental M Associates, D.P.G. Planning SEPTEMBER 15, 0 5 2 1 r LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AL vu �F r -- I p _� — . -- i MODEL VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM CASCADILLA AVENUE SOUTH 56"HIGH FIVE-RAIL OPTION SHOWN ON SOUTH SIDE OF CREEK MODEL VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH 42"HIGH FOUR-RAIL OPTION SHOWN ON NORTH SIDE OF CREEK CASCADILLA CREEKWAY LABELLA.� Engineering NEW PORK Department of Architecturescar[wCASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH AND SOUTH SECTIONS BETWEEN N.CAYUGA STREET AND N.TIOGA STREET °"° Transportation EnvironmentaAssociates, D.P.0 Planning SEPTEMBER 15,2015 Mill = LANDSCAPE ARCNITECiS SIX FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE i - _____ _® `1 I` .a: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE(OPTIONAL-ALTERNATIVE 2) WEATHERING STEEL BRIDGE WITH CONCRETE FLOOR AND WOOD RUB RAIL CASCADILLA CREEKWAY L,/\BELL� Architecture NEWYORK Department of Architecture STTROWSKIDGE ATC O MICHAELS CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH AND SOUTH SECTIONS BETWEEN N.CAYUGA STREET AND N.TIOGA STREET °"" I Transportation Environmenta Associates, D.P.C. Planning SEPTEMBER 15,2015 "., LANDSCAPE ARC"IT S Gf _ _ ' Y F n NORTH n n f v D INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING V1 SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP rn - -- EXISTINGCONDITIONS --- -------------- ---------- I I �- ......... ........... ............ .... 1 I I I I ♦ CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKINGS& PEDESTRIAN RAMP WITH DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE,T'P. a RAISED CURB'BUMPOUTS" NORTH CAYUGA STREET PAVEMENTMARKINGS USED TO NARROWLANE ♦ i .................................... h INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING I SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP O � I t a -n - -------- --- I � � Ar 6v — gH 9H o j C)J/ ti =0 INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING 3 o mg �y/ �� J� / SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP o J irm /• I E� p O Sc� NORTH CAYUGA STREET INTERSECTION ALTERATIONS(OPTIONAL-ALTERNATIVE 3)-SITE PLAN DETAIL TRAFFIC CALMING AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS CASCADILLA CREEKWAY ABELLA EngineeringTROWBRIDGFE NAT-yC I Department of Architecture STATC OT *` DPPONTVNIIY HAELS Transportation Environmental CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH AND SOUTH SECTIONS BETWEEN N.CAYUGA STREET AND N.TIOGA STREETmlcw Associates, O.P.C. Planning SEPTEMBER 15,2015 "., = LAND5CAPE ARCHITECtS VY �� NORTH ILA 4 r INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING N SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP mo rn I EXISTING CONDITIONS y\a I ��°�°o ___----- INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP — ---- -—I x / --- I � n � CROSSWALKPAVEM�NT MARKINGS& DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE,TYP. ---------------------—-- - NORTH CAYUGA STREET a _..................... ____ _______ - -- -i --- y —— FB INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP O ^ REPLACE RAMFI 0 � b� eH --- a x pJ =p / INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING 3 SURFACE AT EXISTING RAMP�g N m Q Q o4 g rn O ^ NORTH CAYUGA STREET INTERSECTION ALTERATIONS(OPTIONAL-ALTERNATIVES 2&4)-SITE PLAN DETAIL TRAFFIC CALMING AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS CASCADILLA CREEKWAY �- NE&YOR" p LABELLA Engineering nA�a De ariment of Architecture TROWBRIDGE CASCADILLA AVENUE NORTH AND SOUTH SECTIONS BETWEEN N.CAYUGA STREET AND N.TIOGA STREET �y Transportation Environmenta'i SEPTEMBER 15,2015 Associates, D.P.C. Planning "., ,H, CITY OF ITHACA NY 14850-5690 °oo —3rd 108 E. Green Street Floor Ithaca, UILDING9 ZONING9 & ECONOMIC DEP o° DEVELOPMENT T OF PLANNING9 B ° � �' b A. ram! a Il o® . Planning& Development 0 IN DEVELOPMENT °0°°°°°°°°°° Division 0 o UCIS , ty eve jOANN Opnent/I[ — 07 274 6559 ORRI Telephone: Planning Development 607-274- 550 COnnuni Email: Tura@cltyofithaca•org Email: dgiunder@cityofitliaca.Org BoardiWorks ® o r From. Bike _Blvd on Cascadilla Creekway Date: September 23,P 2015 15 2 15' forte proposed 'n oar as reviewed plans ate Septe er , The Planning he Board',understands the project -- it is o include improvements to Cascailla Creekway• As some wall repairs, safety railings . Lion • ° •n s on both sides of the creekway, possible intersection improvem ents and a possible bridge,replacement. ° ' ion to pedestrians, cars and ' illustrating the prop osed height...of the railings on relation Drawings illustr g p p south side of the creek are proposed to be approximate cyclists, show that the railings on the y t high. The Planning Board understands that the`r eason for this height- which as the five fee g com I with safety standards that would allow drawings depict—can be taller than a car is to P y the southern side of the creekway to b also • e an official bicycle boulevard. The Board feasible railingdesign is a standard steel box beam understands.:that due to cost- the...;only fe railing system. • • • • d their standard design will The Planning Boa feels�that-the tall height of the railings combine in in this truly unique and beautiful part of the si nificantl ..detract from the., experience of being y • g y not (as the Board understands it) be under ' Since the design of the'-,-railings can City. Public works to consider not making the creekway an � consideration, they urge the Board of P • that railin s on its south side can be lowers tot e more open, official bike boulevard, so t g feels that the V proposed for its north side. The Board welcoming and pedestrian scaled 3 p ro p of its • n i octant pedestrian and bike route regardless creekway will continue t® function as a p ' • significantly improve the aesthetics oft is roject• official status—and that a lower railing will sign y p i c