Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-22-17 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AGENDA The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on AUGUST 22ND , 2017 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY. AGENDA ITEM Approx. Start Time 1. Agenda Review 6:00 2. Privilege of the Floor (3-minute maximum per person ― if you will be speaking about a project with a scheduled PUBLIC HEARING below , you are highly encouraged to speak at that time) 6:01 3. Site Plan Review A . Project: Finger Lakes ReUse Commercial Expansion and Supportive Apartments 6:10 Location: 214 Elmira Road Applicant: Finger Lakes ReUse Actions: Consideration of Preliminary Approval Overall & Final Site Plan Approval for Phase 1 Project Description: The applicant proposes to expand the existing office and retail center with a new +/-26,100sf attached 4-story mixed-use building to include retail, office, and 22 units of transitional housing fronting Elmira Road. A 7,435 SF covered outdoor inventory building and a 600 SF pavilion are also proposed. The new parking and loading layout will reduce the number of curb cuts on Elmira road from 5 to 2 and provide 70 parking spaces. An improved sidewalk will be constructed to provide a safer link between the existing pedestrian bridge that connects the Titus Tower property to Elmira Road. The building will have landscaped entrances facing Elmira Road and these will be connected to the new building entrances giving residents and patrons arriving on foot direct access to the street. The project site is in the B-5 Zoning District and has received the required area variance. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 (I), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (11) for which the Planning Board as Lead Agency made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on June 27, 2017. CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org APPLICANT OVERHEAD PROJECTOR NOTE: The City only has a VGA plug/cable available 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 laptops may not have a VGA port.) Start Times: Start times are approximate only — APPLICANTS are responsible for being available at whatever time(s) their agenda item(s) is actually discussed. If you have a disability & would like specific accommodation to participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 p.m., 2-3 business days (not including weekends/holidays) before the meeting. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 2 B Project: 709 West Court Street (Housing) 6:30 7:20 Location: 326 & 328 N Meadow St. and 709 – 713 W Court Street Applicant: Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP for Lakeview Health Services Inc. Actions: Public Hearing Determination of Environmental Significance Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room, laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference room, utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 (1) (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (11) and is subject to environmental review. C Project: Duplex 6:50 Location: 217 Columbia Street Applicant: Charlie O’Connor for 985 Danby Rd LLC Actions: Public Hearing Project Description: the applicant is proposing to install a modular duplex with one 3- bedroom apartment on each floor. The new structure is proposed to be sited directly behind the existing duplex on the property. As the project will increase the off-street parking required from two to four spaces, the applicant is proposing to shift the existing curb cut to the east and install an expanded parking area and drive aisle along the eastern property line. The project also includes removing a 30”dbh oak and one street tree, closing the existing curb cut, installing a fence, landscaping and walkways. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District. This is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-5 C.(8) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.5 (C)(9) and is not subject to environmental review 4. Zoning Appeals #3080, 131 Blair Street, Area Variance #3081, 203-211 Elm Street, Area Variance 7:20 5. Old/New Business A. 412 E State Street- Shared Parking Agreement B. Planning Board Report Regarding the Proposed Local Historic Landmark Designation of 403 College Ave and 411-415 College Avenue. There will be a short presentation by Scott Whitham regarding 411-413 College Ave C. Development Patterns on South Hill - Discussion 7:30 6. Reports A. Planning Board Chair (verbal) 8:00 B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal) C. Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal) 7. Approval of Minutes: July 25, 2017, April 25, 2017 (time permitting) 8:20 8. Adjournment 8:50 ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE You may access this agenda (including attachments) by going to the “Agenda Center” on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/agendacenter), under “Planning & Development Board.” For ease-of-access, a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda is always accessible on the Planning Board home page: http://www.cityofithaca.org/354/Planning-Development-Board. STREAM Collaborative architecture + landscape architecture dpc 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850 August 15, 2017 Lisa Nicholas Planning Department City of Ithaca 108 E. Green St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Lisa: Please find attached an updated plan showing the limits of the proposed phase 1 work to be completed this year. The remainder of the work is expected to be constructed in 2018 pending additional funding for the affordable housing component of the project. The plan also includes additional street trees as requested by the planning board and we are including a cut sheet for the proposed 6 foot high fencing that will be installed during phase 2. We look forward to continuing the review of the project with the planning board next Tuesday the 22nd. We are hopeful these minor changes will be sufficient for final approval of the first phase only and preliminary approval of the remaining second phase. There is more work to be done on the main mixed-use building addition and we plan to submit updated drawings for that work later this year. Sincerely, Noah Demarest AIA, RA, RLA, LEED AP Principal noah@streamcolab.com 607.216.8802 QUICK VIEW HEIGHT 4’, 5’, 6’, 8’ (stackable) (1245, 1549, 1778, 2464 mm) LENGTH 7’ 9” (2356 mm) FINISH Pre-galvanized + polyester powder coated QUICK VIEW HEIGHT 4’, 5’, 6’, 8’ (stackable) (1245, 1549, 1778, 2464 mm) LENGTH 7’ 9” (2356 mm) FINISH Pre-galvanized + polyester powder coated OMEGA ARCHITECTURAL BRING YOUR STYLE RIGHT THROUGH THE FENCE THE OMEGA ARCHITECTURAL FENCE SYSTEM ENHANCES THE BEAUTY AND AMBIENCE OF YOUR PROPERTY WITH A UNIQUE MODERN FENCE DESIGN. OMEGA ECO A TRUE GREEN SECURITY FENCE SYSTEM THE OMEGA ECO GREEN FENCE SYSTEM OFFERS AN INNOVATIVE AND ELEGANT PLATFORM TO GROW VINES AND PLANTS. Horizontal wire 6 GA (4.88 mm) Vertical wire 6 GA (4.88 mm) Mesh opening 1.97” x 6” (50 mm x 150 mm) Horizontal wire 6 GA (4.88 mm) Vertical wire 6 GA (4.88 mm) Mesh opening 1.97” x 6” (50 mm x 150 mm) SINGLE WIRE FENCE SYSTEMS QUICK VIEW HEIGHT 4’, 6’, 8’ (stackable) (1230, 1830, 2430 mm) LENGTH 8’ 3” (2518 mm) FINISH Pre-galvanized + polyester powder coated Horizontal wires 1 x 8 GA (4.00 mm) Vertical wire 1 x 8 GA (4.00 mm) Mesh opening 0.5” x 3” (12.7 mm x 76.2 mm) OMEGA MAX SECURITY AT ITS MAXIMUM THE PROACTIVE SOLUTION FOR PROJECTS THAT NEED ANTI-CLIMB, VANDAL RESISTANT AND HIGH SECURITY FENCING. ANTI -C U T ANTI-C L I M BHIGH SECURITY FENCE SYSTEMS NEW EXISTINGBUILDING17,472SFNEWMIXEDͲUSEBUILDINGͲ4STORYFOOTPRINT6800+/ͲSFELMIRAROADP A V ILIO NEXISTINGSHOP1438SFFF=386.3EXISTINGCONCRETESIDEWALKSTAFFPARKINGSTOCKEDINVENTORY7,435SFTITUSTOWERCUͲSTRUCTURALSOILͲSEEGENERALPLANTINGNOTESCUͲSTRUCTURALSOILͲSEEGENERALPLANTINGNOTESPHASE1LIMITSINCLUDESNEWSTORMDRAINAGEPERC104UTILITYPLAN.ALLOTHERWORKTOBEPERFORMEDINPHASE2.PLANTINGSAREPARTOFPHASE26FTWIREFENCEINSTALLEDINPHASE22"SINGLEGROUNDHARDWOODBARKMULCHPLANTINGMIXͲTOPSOIL(1PART),COMPOST(1PART),SAND(1PART)5'Ͳ0"SPADEDEDGEͲTYPICALCOMPACTEDPLANTINGMIXBENEATHROOTBALLTOPREVENTSETTLING3XROOTBALLROOTBALL+6"2"Ͳ3"SINGLEGROUNDHARDWOODBARKMULCHPLANTINGMIXͲTOPSOIL(1PART),COMPOST(1PART),SAND(1PART)4"TOPSOILFORLAWNSSPADEDEDGEͲTYPICAL1'Ͳ6"MINCOMPACTEDPLANTINGMIXBENEATHROOTBALLTOPREVENTSETTLING1"=20'Ͳ0"C1SITEPLANTINGPLAN0'20'10'1.CONSULTLANDSCAPEARCHITECTONSHAPEOFBEDEDGE&PLACEMENTOFALLPLANTSPRIORTOINSTALLATION.2.ONLYNURSERYͲGROWNPLANTMATERIALSSHALLBEACCEPTABLE.ALLTREES,SHRUBSANDGROUNDCOVERSSHALLCOMPLYWITHAPPLICABLEREQUIREMENTSOFANSIZ60.1,AMERICANSTANDARDFORNURSERYSTOCK.3.ALLPLANTINGBEDSTOBEEXCAVATEDTOAMINIMUMDEPTHOF18"ANDREPLACEDWITHAMENDEDTOPSOILASSPECIFIEDANDCONSISTINGOF1PARTSCREENEDTOPSOIL,1PARTCOMPOSTAND1PARTSAND.SUBMITTESTREPORTSFORAPPROVAL.4.ALLPARKINGISLANDSWITHTREESSHALLUSECUͲSTRUCTURALSOIL.SOILVOLUMESHALLBEREQUIREDBASEDONCUͲSTRUCTURALSOILCOMPREHENSIVEGUIDEBASEDONSPECIES.5.TREEPITSINLAWNTOBEEXCAVATEDTODEPTHOFROOTBALLPLUSSIXINCHESANDSHALLBETHREETIMESTHEWIDTHOFTHEROOTBALL.6.DECIDUOUSTREESSHALLHAVEACALIPEROFATLEAST2INCHESATBREASTHEIGHT(DBH)ATTHETIMEOFPLANTING.7.ALLTREESINLAWNAREASTORECEIVEFIVEͲFOOTDIAMETERMULCHRINGS.8.INSTALL3INCHESOFNATURALSHREDDEDBARKMULCHINALLPLANTINGBEDS.9.NOPLANTSORTREESSHALLBELOCATEDBENEATHBUILDINGOVERHANGS.10.SUN/SHADELAWNMIXͲDEEPTILLANYCOMPACTIONDUETOCONSTRUCTIONANDINSTALL4"OFAMENDEDTOPSOIL.11.WARRANTYALLPLANTMATERIALSFORAPERIODOF1ͲYEARBEYONDTHEDATEOFSUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION.GENERALSHEETNOTESͲPLANTINGPLANTINGSCHEDULEKEY QTY. BOTANICALNAME COMMONNAME INSTALLEDSIZE MATURESIZESHRUBͲDECIDUOUSCOA 23 Cornusalba REDTWIGDOGWOOD #5CONTAINER 9'TALL&WIDEPOD 34 Physocarpusopulifolius'Diablo' NINEBARK #5CONTAINER 8'TALLANDWIDESHRUBͲEVERGREENKLM 25 Kalmialatifolia MOUNTAINLAUREL #5CONTAINER 7'WIDESHRUBͲPERENNIALCAK 48 Calamagrostis×acutiflora'KarlFoerster'FEATHERREEDGRASS #5CONTAINER 3'WIDE3'TALLTREEͲORNAMENTALSPC 2 Stewartiapseudocamellia FALSECAMELLIA 1.5" 25'TALLTREEͲSHADEACR 14 Acerrubrum REDMAPLE 2"CALIPER 40'TALLBEN 6 Betulanigra BLACKBIRCH 20" 70'TALLEXIST 19 EXISTINGSHADETREE LITTLELEAFLINDEN 2"CALIPER 40'TALL&30'WIDEGTT 6 Gleditisiatricanthos"Thornless" THORNLESSLOCUST 2"CALIPER 30'TALLTREEͲEVERGREENPOS 4 Piceaomorika SERBIANSPRUCE 2"CALIPER 80'TALLProject#DatePRELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRUCTIONSTREAMCollaborativearchitecture+landscapearchitecturedpc123S.CayugaStSuite201Ithaca,NewYork14850ph:607.216.8802www.streamcolab.comA234BCDAsindicated8/15/201710:25:17AMC:\Users\Noah\Documents\2014008ͲFingerLakesReUsePhaseIIͲSITE_noah@streamcolab.com.rvtL103PLANTINGPLAN2015033214ELMIRAROADAUGUST15,2017FINGERLAKESREUSECENTERCITYOFITHACAPHASE1SITEPLANREVIEWREVISIONSȴDESCRIPTION DATE1/2"=1'Ͳ0"1TYPICALTREEPLANTING1/2"=1'Ͳ0"2TYPICALPERENNIALPLANTING 1ST FLOOR ‐ EXISTING0"ROOF PLATE15' ‐ 5"1ST FLOOR3' ‐ 4"PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS ‐ 192 TOTALPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION p: 607.216.8802 | WWW.STREAMCOLAB.COM©STREAM Collaborative Architecture + Landscape Architecture DPC 1" = 10'‐0"C:\Users\Noah\Documents\2014008 ‐ Finger Lakes ReUse Phase II_noah@streamcolab.com.rvtA12STOCKED INVENTORY ‐ SOUTH ELEVATIONAUGUST 15, 20172015033214 ELMIRA ROADCITY OF ITHACAFINGER LAKES REUSE CENTER 1" = 10'‐0"1STOCKED INVENTORY ‐ SOUTH ELEV 1ST FLOOR ‐ EXISTING0"ROOF PLATE15' ‐ 5"FLOOD VENTS AS REQUIREDRAIN CHAINS TO STORMWATER PLANTERSMETAL SIDINGMETAL ROOFINGTRANSITION FLASHING AT SEAM12'X12' OVERHEAD DOOR1ST FLOOR ‐ EXISTING0"1ST FLOOR3' ‐ 4"2ND FLOOR15' ‐ 10"3RD FLOOR26' ‐ 5"4TH FLOOR35' ‐ 7"ROOF44' ‐ 9"COVERED PALETTE RACKSPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION p: 607.216.8802 | WWW.STREAMCOLAB.COM©STREAM Collaborative Architecture + Landscape Architecture DPC 1" = 10'‐0"C:\Users\Noah\Documents\2014008 ‐ Finger Lakes ReUse Phase II_noah@streamcolab.com.rvtA13STOCKED INVENTORY ‐ NORTH ELEVATIONAUGUST 15, 20172015033214 ELMIRA ROADCITY OF ITHACAFINGER LAKES REUSE CENTER 1" = 10'‐0"1STOCKED INVENTORY ‐ NORTH ELEV 1" = 10'‐0"2STOCKED INVENTORY ‐ WEST ELEV PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review Preliminary Approval- Overall Finger Lakes ReUse Commercial Expansion and Supportive Apartments Final Approval- Phase 1 214 Elmira Road Planning & Development Board August 22, 2017 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for commercial expansion and supportive apartments by Finger Lakes ReUse, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand the existing office and retail center with a new +/-26,100sf attached 4-story mixed-use building to include retail, office, and 25 units of transitional housing fronting Elmira Road. A 8,100 SF covered outdoor inventory building and a 600 SF pavilion are also proposed. The new parking and loading layout will reduce the number of curb cuts on Elmira road from 5 to 2. An improved sidewalk will be constructed to provide a safer link between the existing pedestrian bridge connecting the Titus Towers property to Elmira Road. The building will have landscaped entrances facing Elmira Road and these will be connected to the new building entrances giving residents and patrons arriving on foot direct access to the street. The project site is in the B-5 Zoning District and requires an area variance, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 (I) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (10), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: : the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action, did, on March 28, 2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted, and adjacent property owners notified in accordance with Chapter 290-9 C. (1), (2), & (3) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on June 27, 2015, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on May 23, 2017, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Site Layout Plan (L101)”, “Grading Plan (L102)”, “Planting Plan (L103)”, “Site Details (L501)”, “1st Floor Plan – North (A1)”, “1st Floor Plan – West (A2)”, “1st Floor Plan – South (A3)”, “2nd Floor Plan (A4)”, “3rd Floor Plan (A5)”, “4th Floor Plan (A6)”, “Roof Plan (A7)”, “East and West Elevations (A8)”, “North Elevation (A9)”, “Southeast Elevation (A10)”, “Southwest Elevation (A11)”, “Stocked Inventory-North Elevation (A12)”, “Stocked Inventory-South Elevation (A13)”, “Stocked Inventory-West Elevation (A14)” all dated 5-15-17 and the following undated drawings titled “Southeast Perspective” and “Southwest Perspective”, “Northeast Perspective and Northwest Perspective”, “Pavilion Schematic” and “Pavilion Schematic–Plan” all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and “Existing Condition Plan (C101)”, “Demolition Plan (C102)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C103)”, “Utility Plan (C104)” and “Details (C201)” all dated 2-16-17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and TG Miller PC and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on June 27, 2017 determine that the proposed project would result in no significant impact and did make a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the required variance on August 10, 2017, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board has on August 25 2017 reviewed and accepted as adequate the following new and revised drawings: “Planting Plan (L103)”, “Stocked Inventory –South Elevation (A12) and “Stocked Inventory –North Elevation (A13)” also showing the west elevation, all dated 8-15-17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the drawing titled “Planting Plan” dated 8-15-17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative, shows the intended Phase I of the project and notes that all other work is intended to be performed in Phase 2, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does herby grant Preliminary Approval to the overall site plan, and Final Approval to Phase 1 as described above, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of building materials samples for Phase I of the project, and ii. Confirmation that transportation comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineer, and iii. Installation of Bike Racks in conformance with City standards (1 per 2,500 SF of net assignable floor area for retail establishments) shall be included in Phase 1 of the project, and iv. Written approval from the City Fire Department, and v. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vi. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: One Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP 1001 West Seneca Street, Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.277.1400 www.twm.la August 15, 2017 JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development Department of Planning and Development City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 Re: Site Plan Review additional information for the Lakeview Multiuse Building at 709 West Court Street Dear JoAnn and Members of the Planning Board: This letter transmits to you the Site Plan Review additional materials for the Lakeview Multiuse Building at 709 West Court Street. The supplemental documentation listed below are attached. The changes to the project drawings include the labeling of the transformer, gas meter, and bollards on sheet L201; the labeling of plant material on sheet L401; the revision of Detail C5/L501 for resetting existing pavers over structural soil; the addition of the green screen and wood panel fence elevation on sheet L502; and the added sheet A1.2 showing the building roof plan with mechanical equipment. • Geotechnical Preliminary Survey & Construction Methods Narrative • Building Energy Use Narrative • Response to Mr. Brodus’ letter • L201 - Planting Plan (Updated 8.15.2017) • L401 - Planting Plan (Updated 8.15.2017) • L501 – Detail Sheet (Updated 8.15.2017) • L502 – Detail Sheet (Updated 8.15.2017) • A1.2 – Building Roof Plan On behalf of those involved, we look forward to reviewing the project with you and members of the Planning and Development Board at the August 22nd Planning Board meeting. At that meeting we are hoping to receive action on the following item: Public Hearing and SEQR Declaration. Sincerely, Peter Trowbridge Principal & 213 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Elwyn Palmer Consulting Engineers, PLLC 607.272.5060 T 607.272.5065 F www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 1 of 2 August 14, 2017 Mr. Mark Pandolf, AIA, LEED AP PLAN Architectural Studio, PC 250 S. Avenue, Suite 100 Rochester, NY 14604 Re: Subsurface Exploration Summary Lakeview Court Street 709-713 W Court Street Ithaca, New York Dear Mark: The following is a summary of conditions encountered to date during our subsurface exploration at 709-713 W Court Street. This work was done in accordance with our proposal of June 26, 2017. To date we have completed one boring; at the existing asphalt-paved parking area just east of the existing wood framed residence at 713 W Court Street. A boring location plan is attached as well as the completed hand-written boring log. The conditions encountered in the boring were consistent with our expectations for this part of the city. The boring location is currently paved with asphalt paving and approximately 1’ of loose course to fine sand & gravel underlying the pavement. Below the asphalt paving base we encountered 3’ of urban fill consisting of most soft silt with some fine sand and traces of coal ash and glass Below the fill, we encountered wet soft organic silt, clay and peat to a depth of 45’. This material is low-strength, soft and compressible, with blow-counts, which is a measure of hammer strikes required to advance a 2” split spoon sampler 6”, ranging from zero (WOH) to 1. Blow counts are used along with soil type and other subsurface properties to determine allowable bearing capacity and other foundation design parameters. Below 45’ conditions improved marginally, with gray loose fine sand and silt and blow counts in the low single digits. We continued to encounter traces of organics, including peat, soft organic silt, marl, and root traces to 74’. A possible bearing layer was encountered at 75’, with blow counts increasing significantly. This layer consists of compact course to fine sand and fine gravel. Unfortunately, this potential bearing layer was found to be less than 10’ thick. Below 85’ we again found soft silts and fine sand. The boring was terminated at 100’. & E P www.ElwynPalmer.com Page 2 of 2 Regarding proposed foundation type, we anticipate the following. The proposed building will be a five-story building with one story of steel frame and concrete construction, a 2 hr rated second floor concrete deck podium level, and four stories of wood frame apartments. The building will be the one of the tallest buildings constructed in this part of the City. The subsurface findings indicate that a conventional shallow spread-footing type foundation is not a viable option for this building due to the underlying compressible organics and loose/soft silt and sands. Although we will continue to evaluate economic foundation alternatives during schematic design, our expectation is that a deep foundation system will be required, most likely consisting of steel pipe piles driven to the bearing strata from 75’ to 85’. The pipe piles will drive quickly and easily through the overburden, can be jointed with mechanical couplings rather than butt welds, and can be done without shoring, dewatering, water-proofing or other support for excavation or construction measures. The piles will end-bear in the compact sand and gravel layer and will support the building through a combination of end-bearing and friction. The piles will support concrete cast-in place grade beams and pile caps supporting the first-floor concrete floor slab and the structure above. Because of the relatively thin strata of suitable bearing material encountered and the uncertainty inherent in a deep foundation system, we recommend that a test pile program be conducted to establish expected pile capacity. A test pile program would consist of installing two or more piles of the size and type expected to be used during construction. The piles would be dynamically tested to establish allowable capacity, and could be located so as to become part of the permanent foundation system. A test pile program is also cost effective as the information provided on actual pile capacity will remove the conservatism inherent in a design based on uncertain pile performance. We not anticipate the need for shoring for the five-story building using a pile foundation system as discussed above. We will provide a complete subsurface investigation report following the completion of the test borings and infiltration tests. Sincerely, ELWYN & PALMER CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLLC David L. Elwyn, PE Partner Cc: James Fruechtl – Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLC Elwyn Palmer&Ithaca, New York www.ElwynPalmer.com607.272.5060709-713 W COURT STITHACA, NYNBORING LOCATIONPRELIM BORING LOCATION PLANB1PROPOSEDBUILDING Lakeview Health Services 1 From: James Moriarty / August 14, 2017 Lakeview Multiuse Building Energy Program Summary 709 West Court Street, Ithaca, NY The Lakeview Health Services building to be located on 709 West Court Street in Ithaca NY will be pursuing certification through the following energy efficiency and green building programs. Energy Efficiency Program Certification The project at a minimum will achieve EPA Energy Star Multifamily High-Rise Certification. This will result in at least a 15% energy savings as compared to the ASHREA 90.1-2013 energy code. These savings will be the result of high quality insulation and air sealing, high efficiency mechanical systems, and reduced electric use from lighting and appliances throughout the building. Green Building Program Certification The project will achieve certification through either the LEED Multifamily Midrise program or the Enterprise Green Communities 2015 program. Both programs provide verified performance in categories including location, site, water use reduction, energy use reduction, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. The building will identify as many optional points as possible to achieve certification. Sincerely, James Moriarty Vice President Sustainable Comfort, Inc. 146 Main Street, Suite 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Office: (508) 713-6680 Mobile: (413) 262-7390 TO: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board RE: Response to concerns of Mr. Ramsey Brous dated 8/9/17 DATE: August 14, 2017 It must first be acknowledged that Mr. Brous is correct in his understanding that our thought had originally been to create commercial space on the first floor of the building. However, it had also been our intent all along to create program and administrative office space on the first floor. This space is necessary in order to provide supportive services to those residents of the building who need them. The problem is that, as we moved from concept to design, better understood the limitations of the site, and began to develop capital funding proposals, we simply ran out of available square footage. For example, our earliest concept design showed 12,000 square feet (SF) on the first floor. However, as we learned about the required setbacks from power lines along Court and Meadow Streets, we had to shrink the overall footprint of the building. We now show the first floor at 10,900 SF, a loss of over 1,000 SF. From a funding perspective, we had originally planned a building with 50 apartment units. Given the high cost of acquisition and construction in Ithaca, it soon became clear that the design would have to yield more apartment units in order to leverage the necessary capital. At one point, we planned 56 units on floors 2 to 5 and moved the building laundry facilities to the first floor. This would still have left about 2,800 SF available on the first floor. However, securing the necessary funding mix through the various NYS operations and capital programs available to us meant that we still had to add additional residential units. We now show 4 residential units on the first floor (along the south side of the building), which brings the total number of apartments to 60 and also eliminates any free SF for additional commercial or retail space. Some other considerations of which we became aware during our planning process include: • The administrative and office space we are planning will front Court and Meadow Streets and will “read” very much like commercial space from the street. • A retail business would likely require significant parking. We would not be able to supply this, thus exacerbating the shortage of parking in the area which could affect other businesses. • The office space we are planning will be staffed by at least 12 Lakeview employees onsite every weekday. Of course, this will be in addition to the 60 permanent residents, as well as visitors to them and our offices who will likely utilize businesses in close proximity. In short, we believe that the project as now designed will add to the vitality of the neighborhood and to the potential consumer base of businesses in the area. Respectfully, Harry M. Merryman Lakeview Health Services, Inc. MIXED-USE BUILDINGSEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSNORTH MEADOW STREET CONTRACT LIMIT LINE PROPERTY LINE CONTRACT LIMIT LINECONTRACT LIMIT LINE8.50'TYP5.00'22.00'6.00'6.00'18.00'TYP.24.00'18.00'TYP.6.00'7.00'15.00'6.00'20.00'2.00'7.00'8.00'5.00'53.50'15.00'R5'R63'R30'R5'R5'R 1 4 '22.00'37.50'20.00'30.50'6.00'7.50'5.00'+/-5.00' MATCHEXISTING WALK WIDTH5.00'TYP.5.50'TYP.9.50'6.00'R5'R2'R30'253.63'226.46'WEST COURT STREET+/-5.00' MATCHEXISTING WALKWIDTHB2L-501GRANITE CURBB3L-501MOUNTABLE GRANITE CURBC2L-501ADA PAVEMENTMARKINGSA4L-5026' TIGHT BOARD FENCEA5L-501PIN AT BUILDINGTHRESHOLDA5L-501PIN AT BUILDINGTHRESHOLDA5L-502BENCHA5L-502BENCHA5L-501PIN AT BUILDINGTHRESHOLDA1L-502WOOD PERGOLAD1L-501ADA CURB RAMP -TYPE BB1L-501FLUSH GRANITE CURBB2L-501GRANITE CURBC4L-501BIKE RACKC1L-501ADA CURB RAMP - TYPE AD3L-501TREE PITS WITH POROUS BOUND AGGREGATEBUILDING OVERHANG - SEEARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSFIRE LANE20.00'FIRE LANE20.00'A5L-502BENCH22.92'8.66'9.95'11.00'11.94'TRANSFORMERGAS METERKEY MATERIALDETAILASPHALT PAVEMENTMEDIUM DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTSTONE MULCHRESET EXISTING PERMEABLE PAVERS OVER STRUCTURAL SOILSPECIALTY PAVEMENTASPHALT PATCH0010'20'ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK08/15/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJTB5L501A2L501A1L501A2L502C5L501XXL502B5L501File: T:\PROJECTS\INHS Court Street\ACAD\L201 LAYOUT.dwg Plot Date: 8/15/2017 L201LAYOUT PLAN1. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ALL UTILITY OWNERS HAVING UNDERGROUND UTILITIESON SITE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UTILITY LOCATING COMPANYAND LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.2. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR LAYOUT OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.3. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR LAYOUT OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL AND LIGHTING.4. INSTALL EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 30' IN CONCRETE AND IN AREAS WHERE CONCRETE ABUTSCURBS AND OTHER FIXED OBJECTS.5. VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ACCEPT CONDITIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. REPORTDISCREPANCIES TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING.6. DO NOT SCALE FROM MEASURING DRAWINGS.7. WALKS, DRIVES, CURBS, PARKING, & BUILDING LOCATIONS TO BE LAID OUT IN THE FIELD BY ALICENSED SURVEYOR.8. DIMENSIONS TO CURBS ARE TO EXPOSED FACES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.9. SITE DRAWINGS BASED ON SURVEY BY:T.G. MILLER PC203 North Aurora Street Ithaca, NY 14850(607) 272-6477GENERAL SHEET NOTES - LAYOUTCONTRACT LIMIT LINESAWCUT PAVEMENTTRAFFIC SIGNALEGENDFURNISHING SCHEDULETYPEQUANTITYMODEL / TYPEFINISHBICYCLE RACK7DERO - HOOP RACK S.S. BRUSHEDSYMBOLPARKING LOT POLE LIGHTCONCRETE JOINTTREE PROTECTION FENCEACBBOLLARD WEST COURT STREETNORTH MEADOW STREET 1CCa2CCa4CKo2ACm2CCa6HYa5VIp10SPl7BUs9PAi6CAa5VIp2HYa14CAa2VIp5BUs17PAi7COs5BUs4VIp5BUs17PAi7COs5BUs2VIp7SPl5CAa11SPg9JUv11SPg6SPg5COs3VIp5JUv9WEf5SPl5SPl9WEf5JUv15JUv18COs9JUv10WEf9DRf4HYa3COs13EEv5SPg7DRf20DRf7EEv5HYa7SPg10BUs10EEv6PAi5VIp5HYa5VIp5HYa3VIp9DRf10EEv12SPg6HYa4COs3VIp3COs8WEf12SPl8WEf12SPl8WEf2HAp4COs2ACm14COs16SPl2PQu2HAp2PQu2HAp2PQu2HAp2PQu2HAp2PQu4HAp4PQu2HAp2PQuEXISTINGSTRUCTURAL SOILBENEATHEXISTINGSTRUCTURAL SOILBENEATHFile: T:\PROJECTS\INHS Court Street\ACAD\L401 PLANTING.dwg Plot Date: 8/15/2017 L401PLANTING PLANABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK08/15/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJTABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK08/15/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJT0010'20'GENERAL SHEET NOTES - PLANTING1. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE PREPARED AS SPECIFIED: SHRUB BEDS TO BE PREPARED IN THEIRENTIRETY WITH 24" OF PLANTING SOIL MIX. TREE PITS TO BE DUG TO DEPTH OF ROOTBALL BY 3XTHE DIAMETER.2. AFTER BEDS ARE PREPARED, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS TO LOCATE TREES, SHRUBS ANDPERENNIALS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL LOCATIONS ARE TO BEAPPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE THEY ARE PLANTED.3. NO PLANTS ARE TO BE PLANTED UNDER ROOF OVERHANGS OR CANOPIES.4. ALL TREES AND PLANTS TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI 260.1 "AMERICANSTANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK".5. MAINTAIN AND WARRANTY ALL LIVING PLANT MATERIAL AS PER SPECIFICATIONS.6. HAND DIG AND PLANT SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS WITHIN CANOPY OF EXISTING TREES. PROTECTROOTS OF EXISTING TREES DURING INSTALLATION.LEGENDSHRUBS / GRASSES / PERENNIALSCONTRACT LIMIT LINEPROPOSED TREEF7L501F9L501SELECTED PLANTSQTKEYBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOTDECIDUOUS TREES4 ACmAcer miyabei 'Morton'State Street Miyabe Maple1 3/4" TO 2 1/4"B&BORNAMENTAL TREES4 CKoCornus kousaKorean Dogwood8 - 10'B&B5CCaCercis CanadensisEastern Redbud6-8'B&BSHRUBS37 BUsBuxus sempervirens 'North Star'North Star Boxwood#5 CONT65COsCornus sericea 'Cardinal'Cardinal Red Twig Dogwood#5 CONT33 HYaHydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle'Annabelle Hydrangea#5 CONT43 JUvJuniperus virginiana 'Grey Owl'Grey Owl Juniper#5 CONT67SPlSpiraea japonica 'Lemon Princess'Lemon Princess Spirea#3 CONT52SPgSpiraea japonica 'Goldflame'Goldflame Japanese Spirea#3 CONT37VIpViburnum plicatum tomentosum 'Shasta'Shasta Doublefile Viburnum#5 CONT.52WEfWeigela florida 'Wine & Roses'Weigela#1 CONTPERENNIALS25CAaCalamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'Feather Reed Grass#2 CONT45DRfDryopteris filix-masMale Fern#2 CONT49PAlPennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln'Fountain Grass#2 CONT40EEv Echinacea x 'Evan Saul'Sundown Big Sky Coneflower#2 CONTVINES16HApHydrangea anomala ssp. petiolarisClimbing Hydrangea#3 CONT16PQuParthenocissus quinquefoliaVirginia Creeper#3 CONTTURF LAWNF3L501EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN Scale: 1"=1'-0"RESET EXISTING UNIT PAVERS OVER STRUCTURAL SOILC5EXISTING PERMEABLE UNITPAVERSUNDISTURBED SUBGRADEWIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLANCROSS SLOPE AS SHOWNON GRADING PLANCOMPACTED EXISTING STRUCTURAL SOILOPEN GRADED STONE SETTING BEDAASHTO #8/#9POLYMERIC SAND JOINTS2"Scale: 1/2"=1'-0"BICYCLE RACKC4NOTES:1. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL MOUNTING HARDWARE2. MOUNT AS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.3. FOR BICYCLE RACK PRODUCT, SEE SPECIFICATIONSSTAINLESS STEEL BIKE RACKMEDIUM DUTY CONCRETEPAVEMENTSURFACE MOUNTHANDICAP PAVEMENT MARKING3'-0" TYP.12"7'-0" CLEAR MIN., TYP.NOTES:1. REMOVED AND STOCKPILED SIGNS TO BE REINSTALLED.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL SIGNS NEEDED TO MEET ADA PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS.2. POSTS AND MOUNTING HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZEDTAMPER RESISTANT BOLTS, LENGTH AS NECESSARY.RESERVEDPARKINGTYPE ATYPE BScale: 1/4"=1'-0"ADA PAVEMENT MARKINGS C2PARKINGINAISLE4'-0"TYPE CScale: 1/4"=1'-0"TRAFFIC SIGNSC3STOPPEDESTRIANCROSSINGSTOPPEDESTRIANCROSSINGTRAFFIC WHITE4" WIDE PAINTLINE, TYP.CURB FACETRAFFIC WHITE4" WIDE PAINTLINE, TYP.2" GALVANIZED U-CHANNEL POSTWITH BREAKAWAY BASEADJACENT PAVEMENT2500 PSI CONC. SONO TUBETRAFFIC BLUEPAINTTRAFFIC WHITEPAINTNEW YORK STATEACCESSIBLE ICONNOTE:1. 1/4" RECESS AT BUILDING THRESHOLD4"1'-6"Scale: 1"=1'-0"PIN AT BUIDLING THRESHOLDA56"CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT BUILDINGTHRESHOLDSBUILDING FACE#4 EPOXY-COATED SMOOTH DOWELAT 16" O.C. GREASE AND CAST INTOFOUNDATION WALL.BUILDING FOUNDATIONEXPANSION JOINTNOTES:1. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION AND TYPE OF SCORE JOINTS.2. BROOM PERPENDICULAR TO LINE OF TRAFFIC.3. 2" WINDOW PANE EDGE FINISH.WIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLANWIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLAN Scale: 3/4"=1'-0"CONCRETE BROOM FINISH DETAILA4MEDIUM BROOM FINISH. BROOMPERPENDICULAR TO LINE OFTRAFFIC.TOOLED CONTROLJOINTS2" WINDOW PANEEDGE FINISHNOTES:1. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION AND TYPE OF JOINTS.2. OVERLAP MESH SHEETS 1'-0" MIN.3. EXPANSION JOINTS TO BE LOCATED EVERY 30' O.C.MIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANSTJEJScale: 1"=1'-0"CONCRETE JOINTSA31/2" EXPANSION JOINT (EJ)/CONSTRUCTION JOINT (CJ) ANDCLOSED-CELL FOAM FILLER ANDJOINT SEALANT1/2" EPOXY COATED SMOOTH DOWELx 18" W/ PLASTIC SLEEVE AT 18" O.C.1" DEEP TOOL JOINT (TJ)W/ 14" RADIUSNOTES:1. SEE PLANS FOR TOOL JOINTS, EXPANSION JOINTS (EJ),LAYOUT WIDTHS AND RADII.2. 2" MINIMUM CONCRETE COVERAGE ON MESH AND TIESWIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLANCROSS SLOPE AS SHOWNON GRADING PLAN8"Scale: 1"=1'-0"MEDIUM DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTA26"5"WELDED WIRE FABRIC 6" X 6" - W2.9 x W2.9FLAT SHEETS SET ON CHAIRSCOMPACTED SUBBASE ORSTRUCTURAL SOIL. SEE L401 FORLOCATIONS.COMPACTED SUBGRADECONCRETE PAVEMENT MIX (4500PSI AT 28DAYS)NOTES:1. SEE PLANS FOR TOOL JOINTS, EXPANSION JOINTS (EJ),LAYOUT WIDTHS AND RADII.2. 2" MINIMUM CONCRETE COVERAGE ON MESH AND TIESWIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLAN6"1'-0"Scale: 1"=1'-0"HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTA13"CONCRETE WALK#4 REBAR @ 18" O.C. BOTH WAYSCOMPACTED SUB-BASECOMPACTED SUBGRADECROSS SLOPE AS SHOWNON GRADING PLAN1'=1'-0"ASPHALT PATCHB41'-6"3"SAWCUT RESURFACE LIMITLOCATION AS SHOWN ON PLANSBITUMINOUS SEALEREXISTING ASPHALTEXISTING SUB-BASE2" TOP COURSE3" BINDER COURSENYSDOT TYPE 2 GRANULARSUB-BASE COURSE - MIN 8" DEEPScale: 1"=1'-0"ASPHALT PAVEMENTB511 2"1'-0"3"2'-0"WRAPNYSDOT TYPE 7 TOP COURSENYSDOT TYPE 3 BINDER COURSESUBBASE, SHOULDER TO EXTEND12" BEYOND EDGE OF PAVEMENTCOMPACTED SUBGRADESEPARATION FABRIC TO WRAPUNDER ASPHALTTAMP EDGESScale: 1"=1'-0"FLUSH GRANITE CURB B11'-2"5"3"2'-0"ADJACENT PAVINGCONCRETE DRY MIX BEDDING UNIFORM PILESAT EACH END AND ON 3-FOOT CENTERSBENEATH CURB FOR FULL LENGTH OF CURB.FLUSH GRANITE CURB W/ SAWN &THERMAL TOP AND SAWN FACES3000 PSI CONCRETE BACKING FULL LENGTHOF CURB. FORCE CONCRETE THROUGH BACKOF JOINTS. GROUT FRONT AND TOP OF JOINTSFLUSH WITH 1:2 MORTAR MIX.ADJACENT PAVING1'-4"NOTES:1. RADIUS CURBING SHALL BE USED ON ALL RADII LESS THAN 100 FEET.6"Scale: 1"=1'-0"GRANITE CURBB23"5"ADJACENT PAVINGADJACENT PAVEMENT OR PLANTINGGRANITE CURB1/2" BATTERED FACE, 6"DOWN FROM SAWN TOP.3000 PSI CONCRETE BACKINGFULL LENGTH OF CURB. FORCECONCRETE THROUGH BACK OFJOINTS. GROUT FRONT AND TOP OFJOINTS FLUSH WITH MORTAR MIX.VARIES PERGRADING PLAN,6" TYPICAL1:3:6 DRY MIXUNIFORM PILES AT EACH END ANDON 3-FOOT CENTERS BENEATH CURBFOR FULL LENGTH OF CURB.12" EXPANSION JOINT AND JOINTSEALANT BETWEEN GRANITE ANDCONCRETEIN DOT ROW ONLY - REPLACEDRAINAGE STONE AND ANY EXISTINGUNDERDRAIN THAT IS DISTURBED WITH4" HEAVY DUTY PERFORATED HDPEUNDERDRAIN PIPICK WITH GEOTEXTILEFILTER SOCK OFF APPROVED DOTMATERIAL LISTCOMPACTED SUBGRADEScale: 1/4"=1'-0"ADA CURB RAMP - TYPE AC16'-0"6'-0"1:12 MAX.1:12 MAX.1:12 MAX.LANDINGADA DETECTABLEWARNING PLATEFLUSH CURBScale: 1/4"=1'-0"TREE PLANTINGD53X WIDTH OF ROOT BALL6" MINScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PERENNIAL AND SHRUB PLANTINGD4NOTES:1. PLANT AT SAME DEPTH AS PREVIOUSLYPLANTED IN NURSERY OR CONTAINER2. PROVIDE COMPACTED BASE UNDER ROOTBALL ONLY TO PREVENT SETTLING24" MIN PLANT SHALL BE SET AT ORSLIGHTLY ABOVE THE STABLISHEDFINISH GRADE4" SPECIFIED SHREDDED BARK MULCHUNTIE AND ROLL BACK BURLAPFROM MIN. 1/3 OF ROOT BALL.SYNTHETIC WRAP ISUNACCEPTABLE. CUT WIREBASKETS AND REMOVE.SPECIFIED PLANTING MIXGRADE TO FORM SAUCER IN LAWNAREAS ONLYSCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OFTREE PIT TO PREVENT GLAZING OFSUBGRADE. SET TREE DIRECTLY ONSUBGRADE TO PREVENT SETTLING.SHREDDED BARK MULCH,EXTENT OF BEDLINE:·4" (100mm) FOR SHRUBS·3" (75mm) FOR PERENNIALSAND BULBSUNTIE AND ROLL BACK BURLAPFROM MIN. 1/3 OF ROOT BALL.SYNTHETIC WRAP ISUNACCEPTABLE. CUT WIREBASKETS AND REMOVE.SPECIFIED PLANTING MIXSPADED BED EDGEUNDISTURBED SUBBASEORANGE SNOW APPLIED IN SELECTAREAS AS INDICATED IN SOILMANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSORANGE SNOW APPLIED IN SELECTAREAS AS INDICATED IN SOILMANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSScale: 1/4"=1'-0"TREE PITS WITH POROUS BOUND AGGREGATE PAVEMENTD33'-0"AS PER PLANSNOTES:1. POROUS BOUND AGGREGATE TO BE ADAPAVE BYCHAMEMELEON WAYS OR APPROVED EQUAL.3" #57 STONE3" POROUS BOUNDAGGREGATE PAVEMENTADJACENT GRANITEPAVERS OR CONCRETE,SEE LAYOUT PLAN L201SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX4"Scale: 1"=1'-0"LAWN RESTORATION D2SOD OR HYDROSEEDSPECIFIED TURF SOILSCARIFY 6" OF SUB-GRADE ANDRECOMPACT TO 85% PRIOR TOBACKFILLINGUNDISTURBED AND/ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADE1'-4"NOTES:1. RADIUS CURBING SHALL BE USED ON ALL RADII LESS THAN 100 FEET. 6"Scale: 1"=1'-0"MOUNTABLE GRANITE CURBB33"5"ADJACENT PAVINGADJACENT PAVEMENT OR PLANTINGMOUNTABLE GRANITE CURB,4" CHAMBERED CORNER,6" DOWN FROM SAWN TOP3000 PSI CONCRETE BACKINGFULL LENGTH OF CURB. FORCECONCRETE THROUGH BACK OFJOINTS. GROUT FRONT AND TOP OFJOINTS FLUSH WITH MORTAR MIX.VARIES PERGRADING PLAN,6" TYPICAL1:3:6 DRY MIXUNIFORM PILES AT EACH END ANDON 3-FOOT CENTERS BENEATH CURBFOR FULL LENGTH OF CURB.12" EXPANSION JOINT AND JOINTSEALANT BETWEEN GRANITE ANDCONCRETECOMPACTED SUBGRADEScale: 1/4"=1'-0"ADA CURB RAMP - TYPE BD16'-0" TYP6'-0" TYP2'-0"PITCH 1:12PITCH 1:12NOTES:1. SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR LOCATION AND DIMENSIONOF CURB RAMPS2. GRADE CHANGES TO BE SMOOTH AND EVENLYPITCHED.6'-0" TYP WALK WHERESHOWNPITCH 1:20PLAN6" TYP LANDSCAPEWHERE SHOWNCAST IRONDETECTABLEWARNINGTILESABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK08/15/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJTFile: T:\PROJECTS\INHS Court Street\ACAD\L501 DETAILS.dwg Plot Date: 8/15/2017 L501SITE DETAILS Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"BENCHA58"Scale: 1"=1'-0"STONE MULCHA3SEE PLANCOMPACTED SUBGRADE18" THICK x 512" HIGH ALUMINUMEDGING WITH 12" LONG STAKESADJACENT LAWN ORPLANTING BEDNO. 2 ROUND STONEBUILDING FACESEPARATION FABRIC, WRAP 5"ON BOTH SIDESScale: 1/2"=1'-0"WOOD PERGOLA A1NOTES:1. PERGOLA TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF KILN DRIED, S4S, CEDAR2. STONE FACED POST BASES TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH DRY-LAID STONE WALLS BETWEEN THEM3. GIRDERS AND JOISTS TO HAVE MATCHING TAILS (SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW)4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD MEASURE STONE COLUMN AND CONCRETE PAVEMENT DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SHOP DRAWINGSAND FABRICATION.6'-0"10"8"7'-4"5'-4"2'-2"112"4'-0"2'-0"1'-0"4"SECTION - POST FOOTER AND STONEPOST BASE6"FINISHED GRADEDRY LAID STONE POST BASE6X6 CEDAR POST2"X8" CEDAR JOIST - 2" NOTCHAND NAIL OR SCREW TO GIRDERSW/ STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERS2"X10" CEDAR GIRDER2" X 2" CEDAR PURLIN - NAIL ORSCREW TO JOISTS W/STAINLESS STEEL FASTENERSDRY LAID WALLSTONESAWN AND THERMALLEDBLUE STONE COPE (SEEENLARGEMENT)6X6 CEDAR POSTADJACENT PAVEMENT ORPLANTING12"X36" CONC. SONOTUBEFOOTING - TAPER TOP TOALLOW FINISH GRADE TOCOVER CONCCOMPACTED SUBBASECOMPACTED SUBGRADEScale: 1/4"=1'-0"6' TIGHT BOARD FENCE / GREENSCREENA46'-0" 6"SECTIONNOTES:1. COAT W (2) COATS SUPERDECK 2600 SERIES CLEAR WOOD FINISH PERMANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATION3'-0"1'-4"3"8'-0" O.C.1X4 CEDAR FENCE BOARDS6X6 PT FENCE POSTCOAT SURFACE OF POST W/TAMKO PLASTIC ROOFCEMENT (LEAVE END GRAINUNCOVEREDCONCRETE FOOTING1X6 CEDAR FENCE BOARDS2X2 NAILER5/4X6 CEDAR CAP1" SPACING2X2 NAILERDRAINAGE STONE6' X 3.25' GREENSCREENPANEL4'-0" O.C.CEDAR FENCE PANEL, TYPGREENSCREEN PANEL, TYP6X6 PT FENCE POST, TYPFINISH GRADEFINISH GRADEScale: 1/4"=1'-0"FENCE / GREENSCREEN ELEVATION FROM WESTD1Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"FENCE / GREENSCREEN ELEVATION FROM NORTHC1NOTES:1. SEE DETAIL A4/L502 FOR FENCE AND GREEN SCREEN PANEL CONSTRUCTIONNOTES:1. SEE DETAIL A4/L502 FOR FENCE AND GREEN SCREEN PANEL CONSTRUCTION4'-0"GREEN SCREEN8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL4'-0"GREEN SCREEN8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL4'-0"GREEN SCREEN8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL4'-0"GREEN SCREEN8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL4'-0"GREEN SCREEN8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL4'-0"GREEN SCREEN4'-0"GREEN SCREEN8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL8'-0"CEDAR FENCE PANEL4'-0"GREEN SCREENGREEN SCREEN PANEL IMAGEWOOD PANEL FENCE IMAGEABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK08/15/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJTFile: T:\PROJECTS\INHS Court Street\ACAD\L501 DETAILS.dwg Plot Date: 8/15/2017 L502SITE DETAILS ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK07/05/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJTABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345ABCDDATE:PROJECT:CHECKED:DRAWN BY:12345COPYRIGHT C 2017TROWBRIDGE WOLF MICHAELS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, LLPIT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANYPERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THISD O C U M E N T W H O A L T E R S T H I SDOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TOAFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BYHIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND A SPECIFICDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS.NOTICE:709 WEST COURT STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK07/05/17170041001 W. Seneca St., Ste. 201 Ithaca, NY 14850607-277-1400PRELIMINARYSITE PLAN REVIEWSUBMISSIONNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONOR BIDDINGJLF, MLOPJTFile: T:\PROJECTS\INHS Court Street\SPR-PERMITTING\SPR SEQR ADD MATERIALS\WORKING\A1,A2 ARCHITECTURE.dwg Plot Date: 8/14/2017 A1.2BUIDLING ROOFPLANS Page 1 of 3 Tompkins County Energy Recommendations for New Construction The Tompkins County Energy Roadmap (2016) is intended to help inspire immediate action to reduce energy use and transition to renewable energy as a way to help meet our County’s 80% greenhouse gas emission reduction goal by 2050. Constructing buildings at higher energy standards and incorporating renewable energy systems are essential to attaining that goal. We recommend that all applicants for new construction address how they will support this goal, including whether they intend to follow the recommendations under each of the following five elements. 1) ENERGY STAR products include a wide range of equipment and appliances that are independently certified to save energy without sacrificing features or functionality. Water saving fixtures can reduce energy needed for hot water. Recommendations: o Require that water fixtures meet EPA’s Water Sense requirements. o Require that permanent appliances (apartment refrigerators, restaurant cooking equipment, etc.) be ENERGY STAR rated. 2) Recent advances in heat pump design have reduced installation costs and made them more cost-effective than electric resistance heat, propane, and oil, and close in life cycle costs to natural gas. Use of electric heat pumps allows elimination of fossil fuels as theycan be powered by renewable energy sources such as solar photovoltaic. Recommendations: o Utilize electrically-powered heat pump systems (ground or air source heat pumps); avoid boiler-assisted heat pump systems, avoid systems that burn fossil fuels. o Utilize air source heat pump hot water heaters. 3) The state has a goal that 50% of NYS electricity will be generated by renewables (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) by the year 2030. Recommendations: o Design roofs to be “solar receptive”: Maximize area available for solar collection systems. For pitched roofs, place roof-mounted components (plumbing vents, exhaust fans, etc.) on north-facing roof surfaces, to keep south-facing surfaces available for solar collection systems. Orient one roof surface to the south, plus/minus 30 degrees, to maximize potential for solar energy. o Maximize solar collection systems on available roof areas, and consider using high- production solar panels to maximize solar production for a given roof area, especially for medium-rise and high-rise buildings. Page 2 of 3 4) Energy efficient building design begins with the building envelope -- the walls, windows, foundation and roof. Recommendations: o Design to window-to-wall ratio less than 25% (the new energy code requires 30% or less). Keep large windows on south-facing surfaces and important facades, minimize windows on north-facing surfaces and in spaces which see low occupancy (stairwells, corridors, utility rooms, etc.). o Avoid unusually complex building shapes. o Use 20% more insulation R-value than required by the energy code. o Use best practices for minimizing infiltration and stack effect, and require inspection/commissioning of these elements: vestibules at entrance doors, air sealing around window and door frames, sealing at exterior wall/floor junctions, and guarded blower door testing of individual spaces or entire building floors. We recommend that all applicants for new construction of greater than 20 units also address whether they are intending to follow the recommendations under each of these three added elements. 5) Lighting controls and high-efficiency lighting technology (such as LED or induction) offer significant benefits including greatly reduced energy use and cost, sophisticated controls, simplified maintenance and longer life. Recommendations: o Perform lighting design on a space-by-space basis, using the space-by-space lighting power density method (not the whole-building method). Use LED lighting where possible. Design to lighting power density of 15% less than required by the energy code. o Require occupancy sensors where possible, for both indoor and outdoor lighting. Require short off-delay (1 minute or less), and commissioning of lighting controls. 6) High-efficiency heating and cooling systems cost incrementally more than standard- efficiency but have a positive payback over their useful life. Recommendations: o Select high-efficiency heating and cooling plants with rated efficiencies at least 15% higher than required by the energy code. o Select high-efficiency domestic hot water (DHW) plants with rated efficiencies at least 15% higher than required by the energy code. o Avoid placing heating and cooling distribution systems in unheated spaces, such as attics, basements, etc. Give preference to systems that have efficient distribution systems and low distribution losses (for example, room-by-room fan coils). o Use energy recovery ventilation systems in air conditioned buildings, and heat recovery ventilation systems in buildings that do not have air conditioning. Design ventilation systems separate from heating and cooling systems. o Assess ductwork for heating, cooling and ventilation. If leakage greater than 10% seal chases and shafts with aerosol duct sealing process. o Select heating/cooling systems that allow thermal zoning on a space-by-space basis. Page 3 of 3 7) Whole building energy models can allow you to dramatically reduce energy costs, reduce carbon emissions and even reduce some construction costs. Recommendation: o Employ whole building energy modeling to optimize building energy performance. City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 1 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physic al change to project site? Yes No Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater (15-foot rise per 100 feet of length) or where general slope in the project exceeds 10%. Yes No Construction on land where depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Yes No Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Yes No Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Yes No Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No Construction in designated floodway. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Geotech report indicates that pile driving will be required. See Part 3 Yes No 2. Will there be an effect on any unique land forms found on the site (i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)? Yes No Specific land forms (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 2 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected (under article 15 or 24 of Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)? Yes No Developable area of site contains protected water body. Yes No Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of protected stream. Yes No Extension of utility distribution facilities through protected water body. Yes No Construction in designated freshwater wetland. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Yes No A 10% increase or decrease in surface area of any body of water or more than 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Construction, alteration, or conversion of body of water that exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga Lake, or Cayuga Inlet? Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 3 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality? Yes No Project will require discharge permit. Yes No Project requires use of source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project. Yes No Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Yes No Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which do not currently exist or that have inadequate capacity. Yes No Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute. Yes No Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Yes No Proposed action will require storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 4 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON WATER (cont.) 6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns, or surface water runoff? Yes No Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No Other impacts (if any) Basic SWPPP required Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will project affect air quality? Yes No Project will induce 500 or more vehicle tr ips in any 8-hour period per day. Yes No Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse per 24-hour day. Yes No Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Short term construction impacts only. Appropriate dust mitigation measures should be employed. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 5 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered species? Yes No Reduction of any species, listed on New York or Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Yes No Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Yes No Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, or wildlife species. Yes No Proposed action requires removal or more than ½ acre of mature woods or other locally important vegetation. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Eleven trees to be removed. Eleven replacement trees and other landscaping is proposed. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 6 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 10. Will proposed action affect views, vistas, or visual character of the neighborhood or community? Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Yes No Proposed land uses or proposed action components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of that resource. Yes No Proposed action will result in elimination or major screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Yes No Other impacts (if any): The project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Yes No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any facility or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places. Yes No Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Yes No Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within, or contiguous to, any site designated as a local landmark or in a landmark district. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 7 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces, or recreational opportunities? Yes No The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Yes No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 13. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No Proposed action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No Proposed action will result in reduction in the quality of the resource. Yes No Proposed action will impact use, function, or enjoyment of the resource. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 8 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Yes No Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Yes No Other impacts: Positive impacts – reduction in curb cuts from four to one and increased pedestrian amenities Yes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Yes No Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No Proposed action requiring creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single- or two-family residences. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 9 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance during construction of, or after completion of, this proposed action? Yes No Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school, or other sensitive facility? Yes No Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Yes No Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure. Yes No Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as noise screen. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Temporary construction impacts only Yes No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Yes No Proposed action will cause risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will be chronic low-level discharge or emission. Yes No Proposed action may result in burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Yes No Proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes. Yes No Proposed action will result in handling or disposal or hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases). Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 10 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH (cont.) Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid fuel. Yes No Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization, or control of vegetation, insects, or animal life on the premises of any residential, commercial, or industrial property in excess of 30,000 square feet. Yes No Other impacts (if any): Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment has been submitted. Yes No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Yes No The population of the city in which the proposed action is located is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. Yes No The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this proposed action. Yes No Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Yes No Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Yes No Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. Yes No Development will create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire, etc.) Yes No Proposed action will set an important precedent for future actions. Yes No Proposed action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Yes No City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 2 Project Impacts Project Name: 709 W Court Street Date Created: 7-5-17 Updated 7-25-17 11 of 11 8/16/2017 Small-to- Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact Be Reduced by Project Change? IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD (cont.) Other impacts (if any): Yes No 19. Is there public controversy concerning the proposed action? Yes No Unknown — If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3 — Page 1 of 7 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - Part III Project Name: 709 W Court St Date Created: 7/17/17 Updated 7/20/17 and 7/25/17 by the Planning Board and 8/16/17 New information in Yellow PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room, laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference room, utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south-facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 (1) (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (11) and is subject to environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND The project site is in an urbanized area and is previously developed. The applicant has submitted a letter and attached documentation titled Subsurface Exploration Summary prepared by Elwyn Palmer PLLC and dated 8-14-17. The summary states: …….The subsurface findings indicate that a conventional shallow spread-footing type foundation is not a viable option for this building due to the underlying compressible organics and loose/soft silt and sands. Although we will continue to evaluate econo mic foundation alternatives during schematic design, our expectation is that a deep foundation system will be required, most likely consisting of steel pipe piles driven to the bearing strata from 75’ to 85’. The pipe piles will drive quickly and easily through the overburden, can be jointed with mechanical couplings rather than butt welds, and can be done without shoring, dewatering, water-proofing or other support for excavation or construction measures. The piles will end-bear in the compact sand and gravel layer and will support the building through a combination of end-bearing and friction. The piles will support concrete cast-in place grade beams and pile caps supporting the first-floor concrete floor slab and the structure above. Because of the relatively thin strata of suitable bearing material encountered and the uncertainty inherent in a deep foundation system, we recommend that a test pile program be conducted to establish expected pile capacity. A test pile program would consist of installing two or more piles of the size and type expected to be used during construction. The piles would be dynamically tested to establish allowable capacity, and could be located so as to become part of the permanent foundation system. A test pile program is also cost effective as the information provided on actual pile capacity will remove the conservatism inherent in a design based on uncertain pile performance. We not anticipate the need for shoring for the five-story building using a pile foundation system as discussed above. Page 2 of 7 The Lead Agency is concerned about the impacts of temporary noise and vibration of the foundation construction as well as other noise producing construction activities nearby residents and businesses. The project site is in close proximity to two supportive housing developments, Chartwell and Magnolia House which have approximately 26 residents, as well as other residences. The applicant has stated that they will explore the use of vibratory pile driving which is faster and produces less noise and vibration than impact driving. The applicant will also develop a monitoring plan. Final information about foundation construction will be submitted to the Planning Board. The Lead Agency requires, and the project sponsor has agreed that noise-producing construction activities will be limited to Monday-Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., except for pile driving which will be limited to 7:00 am to 4:00 pm weekdays. IMPACT ON WATER The project site is not contiguous to any body of water. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON DRAINAGE The applicant has submitted the following narrative regarding stormwater: Existing Conditions: The four properties to be consolidated and developed include 0.81 acres of land. The off-site areas in the North Meadow Street and West Court Street right-of-ways include 0.13 acres of land for a cumulative total project area of 0.94 acres. Within this area, 70% is impervious cover consisting of pavements, gravel drives, concrete walks and buildings. Runoff from the four parcels drains in various directions. Approximately 0.10 acres of runoff from 326 and 328 North Meadow Street and their street frontage drains to the stormwater collection system in North Meadow Street. Approximately 0.10 acres of the asphalt drive in the rear of 328 North Meadow Street and the sidewalks along West Court Street drain to the system in West Court Street. Approximately 0.50 acres drain to a lawn panel in the rear of 709 West Court Street. No observable drywells or storm structures exist in this area so it is assumed the runoff infiltrates into the soils. The remaining 0.24 acres drain to the properties west of 713 West Court Street. Proposed Improvements The limit of disturbance for the project will be approximately 0.94 acres and will include all four parcels and the sidewalks and planting areas to the curb lines in North Meadow and West Court Streets. In the proposed condition 71% of the project area will be impervious cover consisting of the building, pavements and concrete walks. As the Limit of Disturbance will be less than one acre and the project will not create more than ½ acre of connected impervious cover, only a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required. Accordingly, no permanent stormwater practices will be required. Drainage patterns will be matched as closely as possible to the existing conditions. A series of drywells with overflow piping will be installed in the landscape area to the south of the proposed building. Runoff to the western properties will be reduced by redirecting runoff to these Page 3 of 7 IMPACT ON AIR Construction is projected to last approximately 14 months. 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. During construction, the applicant will employ the following applicable dust-control measures as appropriate: • Misting or fog spraying site to minimize dust. • Maintaining crushed stone tracking pads at all entrances to the construction site • Re-seeding disturbed areas to minimize bare exposed soils. • Keeping roads clear of dust and debris. • Requiring trucks to be covered. • Prohibiting burning of debris on site. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Based on the Demolition Plan (L101) dated 6/30/17 and prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels ten trees, including one street tree, will be removed during site preparation. Ten existing street trees will be protected and will remain. Eleven new trees and other landscaping is proposed. The landscape Plan will be further developed during Site Plan Review. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project will have a positive impact on the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Quality of materials and design this is an area that has no particular style and a building of this quality will be an example. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES The project site is not within or contiguous to an Historic District or site. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA The project site is in an urbanized area. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS The project site is not in a UNA. No significant environmental impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION The applicant has submitted the following information: Vehicular Circulation: The proposed interior site vehicular circulation includes entry and exit from West Court Street alongside a covered entry into the building. This provides access to parking in the rear of the building. Fire/emergency vehicle access is provided along West Court Street, North Meadow Street, and in the drive aisle of the parking lot with a concrete Page 4 of 7 plaza for a turnaround. The fire access has been coordinated with the City of Ithaca’s Fire Chief. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation: The proposed site plan includes a new concrete sidewalk along the building façades. The walkways along North Meadow Street/State Route 13 and Court Street are proposed to be removed and reconstructed. An entrance plaza is proposed at the corner of West Court Street and North Meadow Street/State Route 13 as well as two seating areas adjacent to the walkway along West Court Street. There are interior site walkways will lead to the parking area and the interior block courtyard. All walkways will be ADA accessible. Additionally, 14 bicycle parking spaces will be located to the west of the building entrance along West Court Street which complies with the City of Ithaca’s Bicycle Parking Requirements. The bicycle parking has been coordinated with the City of Ithaca’s Transportation Parking The plan proposes an interior parking lot with 16 spaces. There is no zoning requirement for parking in the WEDZ-1A district. The residents of the Lakeview Health Systems are not regular automobile users and tend to utilize public transportation. This parking arrangement will encourage public transportation, and is expected to be adequate for residents and staff. In addition, there are two municipal parking lots within a short walking distance of the site. IMPACT ON ENERGY Information about energy usage and systems is needed IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS The Lead Agency is concerned about the impacts of temporary noise and vibration of the foundation construction as well as other noise producing construction activities nearby residents and businesses. The project site is in close proximity to two supportive housing developments, Chartwell and Magnolia House which have approximately 26 residents, as well as other residences. The applicant has stated that they will explore the use of vibratory pile driving which is faster and produces less noise and vibration than impact driving. The applicant will also develop a monitoring plan. Final information about foundation construction will be submitted to the Planning Board. The Lead Agency requires, and the project sponsor has agreed that noise-producing construction activities will be limited to Monday-Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., except for pile driving which will be limited to 7:00 am to 4:00 pm weekdays. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated February 24, 2017, a Phase 2 ESA dated April 4, 2017, and draft Soil Management Recommendations dated April 5, 2107 and all prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. The Phase 1 ESA found the following Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECS) on site: 711-713 West Court Street was listed as Cayuga Oil Company from 1971 through 1981, as Ithaca air duct cleaning in 1996, and as PAH Electronics from 1996 through 2001. The historical use, in particular the use by Cayuga Oil Company, is considered to be a REC for the Page 5 of 7 Property, given the potential that petroleum products were stored and/or used on the Property in combination with the potential former presence of an on-site septic system. In the rear yard of 326 North Meadow Street, material staging was observed including 1-5 gallon containers of fibered asphalt foundation coating, paints including several rusted empty paint cans, oil sprayer, sealers and hydraulic oil. Given the potential for these materials to have spilled from the containers observed and affected the surrounding soil, the material staging area is considered a REC for the Property. 315 North Meadow Street, located across North Meadow Street from 326 and 328 North Meadow Street, was historically used as a service station and currently/historically used as a dry cleaners. Although the NYSDOH concluded that indoor air was not being affected by contamination related to the dry cleaner, PCE, a dry cleaning solvent, was detected in the soil vapor at 326 North Meadow Street, thus the potential for PCE to be present in soil vapor and/or groundwater is considered to be an REC for the Property. 616 West Buffalo Street, located adjacent to the Property to the southwest, was listed as having been used as an auto painters from the late 1920s through the early 1930s (with proxylin lacquer spraying in 1929), a body and fender shop in 1941, Cayuga Electrical Supply from the early 1960s through the late 1960s, and gear and autoparts supply from the early 1970s through the early 2000s. Given the proximity of this site to the Property and the possibility that its historical uses may have been associated with releases of petro leum and hazardous substances, it is considered to be a REC for the Property. A spill occurred at 618 West Buffalo Street in 1991 during the removal of an underground storage tank and petroleum impacts were found in the groundwater. Although the spill fil e was closed by the NYSDEC, the extent of the spill was not fully delineated according to the spill file. Given the proximity of this site to the Property, the historical uses of the site, and the unknown extent of the 1991 spill, it is considered to be a REC for the Property. Due to the results of the Phase I ESA, A Phase 2 ESA was carried out. The assessment tested surface and subsurface soil conditions and groundwater conditions. The report makes the following conclusions and recommendations: The follow-up sample results taken around and to the west of B/MW-8 suggest that it is unlikely that the slag, ash and cinder fill material present in the subsurface will need to be managed as hazardous waste during redevelopment activities. However, fill material with elevated metals concentrations will need to be properly managed and/or controlled during development whether taken off-Site for disposal or remaining on-Site. The data for the test borings in the southwest corner of the Site suggests that an apparently minor release of petroleum or other material containing ethyl benzene and xylene occurred near the B/MW-5 location and has affected shallow groundwater conditions in a limited area. It appears from the available data that that the release may have occurred on-Site; however, the B/MW-5 location is within a few feet of the western property boundary of the Site. Because VOCs were not detected in any of the soil or groundwater samples taken at B/MW- 9, B-10, B/MW-11 and B-12 adjacent to B/MW-5 which had detections of the VOCs ethylbenzene and xylene in shallow soils in association with groundwater concentrations in excess of the applicable SCGs), there is a possibility that an on-Site release may have Page 6 of 7 occurred. However, it is also considered possible that the VOC contamination may be related to an off-Site petroleum spill reported on an adjacent property to the south. Further investigation in the area around B/MW-5 is needed to determine whether an undocumented on-Site spill could have occurred. Stantec recommends that the owner of the 711-713 West Court Street property be advised of the findings and the apparent presence of contamination exceeding groundwater standards at B/MW-5, and concludes that the property owner should seek advice from legal counsel as to whether there is any obligation to report the occurrence to NYSDEC. Stantec also recommends that a Site Management Plan (SMP) should be developed and implemented so that, during site-development, the soils containing the ash/cinder/slag materials around the 326 North Meadow Street parcel and the soil containing VOCs near the dumpster behind the building designated 711 West Court Street can be properly managed and addressed as encountered during redevelopment of the Site, whether taken off-Site for disposal to ensure proper disposal of soils that need to be removed from the Site, or remaining on-Site to limit contact the public has with impacted materials after development. The Lead Agency recognizes that any determination regarding the need for site remediation, as well as the standard to which clean-up is required for the intended end-use, is under the jurisdiction of NYSDEC and the NYS Department of Health. If site development requires that impacted soils be disturbed or reveals that additional contamination exists on site, the applicant is required to follow established protocols of the applicable agencies. However, a copy of the approved Site Management Plan should be submitted to the Lead Agency. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUMITY OR NIEGHBOORHOOD The applicant has submitted the following information: The Utilities available to serve the site include the City of Ithaca water and sanitary sewers, NYSEG electric and gas and overhead telecommunications. It is anticipated that a new water service for the building will be extended from North Meadow Street and a sanitary lateral from West Court Street. These utilities will be installed to the property lines by the City of Ithaca then extended by the project to the building. Overhead electric lines on the north and east property lines necessitate setting the building back 10’ to provide safe separation distances between the occupied spaces and the high voltage lines. The building will be located with additional buffer of approximately 10’ to provide a safe working distance for construction and maintenance. New electric and telecommunications services will be extended from the overhead lines via drops and buried conduit. A new gas service, if required, will be fed from West Court Street The project site contains several residential and one commercial tenant who will be displaced by the project. The applicant has provided a detailed Tenant Relocation Plan with a cover letter from Naomi Gleason, Chief Financial Officer of Lakeview Mental Health to Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner dated July 19, 2017 regarding the relocation plan for the projects. The plan contains the following components: How and when tenants will be notified of the project Providing housing within the new projects to eligible tenants Providing relocation benefits/assistance for eligible exiting tenant Page 7 of 7 The Lead Agency finds that the proposed plan minimizes disruption to the existing tenants to the extent practicable. Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review CEQR- Negative Declaration Apartments (Supportive and Affordable Housing) 326 & 328 N Meadow St, 709-713 W Court St Planning & Development Board August 22, 2017 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a housing project at 326 & 328 N. Meadow St. and 709-713 W Court St. by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Lakeview Mental Health, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to construct a five-story L-shaped building with footprint of 10,860 SF and GFA of 62,700 SF on the .81 acre project site comprising four tax parcels (to be consolidated). The building will contain sixty (60) one-bedroom apartments plus associated shared common space (community room, laundry facilities, lounges, and exterior courtyard), support staff offices, program spaces, conference room, utility rooms, and storage. The siting of the building allows for a small landscaped front yard, a south -facing exterior courtyard, and a 16 space surface parking lot in the rear of the site. Site development will require the removal of five structures and associated site elements. The project is in the WEDZ-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 (1) (k) and (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (11) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: it was requested that Tompkins County Planning Commissioner, Tompkins County Department of Health (TCDOH), NYS Homes and Community Renewal (HCR), NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) and NYS Office of Mental Heal Services, all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: All above listed agencies provided written consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: : the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and/or funding or carrying out the action, did, on July 25, 2017, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on August 22, 2017, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C101)”, “Utility Plan (C102)”, “Details (C201)”, “Demolition Plan (L101)” and “Grading Plan (L301)” dated 6/30/17; and “First and Upper Building Floor Plan (A1)”, “Building Roof Plan (A1.2)”, “North and East Building Elevations (A2.1)” and “South and West Building Elevations (A2.2) all dated 7/05/17 and “Court and Meadow Street Contextual Perspective from Northeast”, “Court and Meadow Street Architectural Perspective from Northeast” and “Court and Meadow Street Architectural Perspective from Northwest” dated 7/19/17; and “Layout Plan (L201)”, “Planting Plan (L401)” and “Site Details (L501 & L502)” dated 8/15/17; and all prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP et al. and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: One Feedback on South Hill development Asya Ollis [asya.ollis@gmail.com] Sent:Saturday, Augus t 12, 2017 5:14 PM To:Lisa Nic holas; cynthia.ny8@gmail.com Hello, I'm sharing my feedback for the 217 Columbia Street meeting. I live at 402 Hudson, on the corner of Columbia. I bought this house 4 years ago and mentioned in the listserv that I've lived in many college towns and have never seen a situation like Ithaca that allows students to walk down the streets drunk, yelling and screaming without any repercussions. It's mind boggling to me that this is accepted behavior. I am woken up every Friday and Saturday night from the students. I pay hefty property taxes and am puzzled why is this behavior tolerated? I looked at the space behind 217 Columbia it's basically a back yard. The thought of another house being plunked down there and filled with more students.....why? So Charlie O'Connor can make more money? Is that more important than residents who have made their homes on South Hill and who unanimously oppose adding another student rental house? What about those of us who live as residents of Ithaca. We pay taxes, we pick up garbage left in our yards by the students, we work to pay mortgages to have homes where we reasonably expect to be able to sleep at night. Where will Charlie be when his tenants are throwing loud drunken parties? It's me who will be woken up and calling the Ithaca Police, not the landlord. I was attracted to Ithaca for it's charm, and love certain things about South Hill. I hope this project will not be allowed to proceed I fail to see any positive things that would result from it. 1 August 15, 2017 Lisa Nicholas City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Dear Ms. Nicholas, I am writing this letter to express our strong belief that 411-415 College Avenue does not rise to the standard necessary to justify formal landmark designation, that restricting redevelopment of the building by landmark designation would be wholly inconsistent with the City of Ithaca’s vision for the future of Collegetown, and that landmark designation of the building would pose a severe long-term hardship on our not-for-profit organization. With respect to the merits of the historical justifications for landmarking, our position is clear. As a not-for-profit organization that dates back to 1894, we certainly understand and agree with the importance of preserving history. However, we believe that a reasonable standard should be met in order to adversely affect an owner’s property rights with a landmark designation. In this particular case, we believe that the ILPC’s arguments for designation are weak at best, and certainly do not rise to the level necessary to justify landmark designation; particularly when weighed against the inconsistencies of a landmark designation with the City’s development goals, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning, and the significant long -term hardship that a landmark designation would pose to Student Agencies. For more detail on this subject, please see the attached letter that we submitted to Bryan McCracken and the ILPC on July 3rd, prior to the ILPC hearing on July 11th. With respect to the alignment of a landmark designation with the City’s development goals, following are summaries of the two sections from our July 3rd detailed report to the ILPC (see link from Planning Staff) examining the potential landmark designation of 411-415 College Avenue in the context of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan and zoning as expressed in § 325-45 Collegetown Area Form District. Summary of Part 3, Section A: Alignment with City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan We considered 411-415 College Avenue in relation to the seven categories in the Comprehensive Plan: Public Participation and Communication, Land Use Goals, Economic Vitality, Community Livability, Mobility and Transportation, Natural & Cultural Resources, Sustainable Energy, Water, and Food Systems. The designation would be in alignment with the preservation goal under Natural and Cultural Resources. However, a redevelopment of the site could be in alignment with every other goal of the Comprehensive Plan, not just one. Public Participation and Communication: We recently undertook the redevelopment of 409 College Avenue to make room for the new eHub space. As part of that process, we communicated regularly and took input, formally and informally, from various City and community stakeholders. In fact, based on the input that we received, we opted to re-envision the front façade of 409 College Avenue. Similarly, if we have the opportunity to redevelop 411-415 College Avenue, we look forward to another set of open design discussions that will lead to a great design for a building that everyone can be proud of to anchor this prominent corner. Land Use Goals: Redevelopment of the site in question would align with the goal of addressing a “strong unmet demand for more urban living opportunities. Connected, compact mixed-use developments that offer financial, environmental, and quality of life benefits can accommodate this unmet demand and prepare us for future growth” and acknowledges that accommodating growth in Collegetown will largely be a matter of seeking out “opportunities for redevelopment, including surface-level parking lots and many underutilized properties.” A new mixed-use building, in this prime location, built to contemporary environmental and with significantly more square footage and a significantly higher taxable value aligns extremely well with this goal. 2 We contend that 411-415 College Avenue is underutilized. It currently has ground floor commercial space and two to three floors of apartments housing 29 tenants. A sensitive redevelopment could create accessible housing for double or triple that number of tenants while maintaining ground floor commercial space and the outdoor space that is so popular. Economic Vitality Goals: This section considers the close relationship between housing and economic vitality, “By providing more housing and attracting a larger population, we will expand the tax base while offering more people the opportunity to live within the city... Appropriate compact, mixed -use development will provide significant new development opportunities while preserving the character of our established residential neighborhoods.” The Plan also looks for opportunities to “capture new business growth within the city, including high-technology and knowledge-based businesses and manufacturing. We will foster an environment that attracts and retains businesses and employers that create well-paying local jobs that enable people to live within the city.” Student Agencies’ not-for-profit mission aligns very well with the City’s economic development goals: we operate, nurture and grows businesses; we expand local employment and provide jobs at many skill levels; we support the development of a wide variety of new businesses, sponsoring about 15 new student start-up businesses each year with capital investment and office space; and we employ nearly 300 students each year, helping them offset their education expenses. Landmark designation would directly and negatively impact our ability to continue and expand these activities. Summary of Part 3, Section B: Alignment with Zoning as Expressed in § 325-45 Collegetown Area Form District This zoning document, adopted in 2014, sets out five intentions for the development of Collegetown. While there is nothing about a landmark designation of the building that would contradict zoning, we strongly contend that redevelopment would be in much stronger alignment with the form-based district than preservation. Intent (1) Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction: 411-415 was constructed using stucco over hollow clay tile, commonly used as a cheap alternative to brick in 1911. The ILPC contends that the building is steel-framed. This is inaccurate. Structurally, the building is composed of a combination of wood framing and hollow structural tile, with some steel support posts in the basement. Only the recent addition to the back of the building is steel-framed. According to a recent Taitem Engineering report, the clay tile has separated from the wood framing, indicating a lack of structural integrity of the façade. They indicate the clay tile has reached the end of its serviceable life. While the façade could be saved through extreme measures, the cost would be economically infeasible for us and would require closing the sidewalk and partially or fully closing College Avenue for the duration of the repair (broadly estimated at 6 months to one year). While, at the time of construction, the use of clay tile was considered an improvement in fire safety, the building falls far short of contemporary fire safety standards. A number of the units have been retrofitted or added on to, with some relying on granted variances to establish bedrooms where window sizes (light and air requirements) cannot be met. Clearly, the current building is not, and was never, high-quality construction. Under redevelopment, we would demand high-quality construction and follow design cues from the established street wall to bring an exceptional building to the site. Intent (2) Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between districts: MU-2 cannot be a transitional district, since there is no district denser than it. 3 Intent (3) Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the established residential neighborhoods: Landmark designation will preclude significant development. On the other hand, redevelopment to the extent that the Form District allows could double or triple the number of potential residents at 411-415 College Avenue. This type of efficient redevelopment aligns well with the intent to augment growth in central areas with the hope of relieving pressure on residential areas. Intent (4) Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of the urban environment; and The existing property at 411-415 College Avenue includes an outdoor eating area at the northern portion of the property. While it is not a traditional green space, it is well appreciated by the community as an outdoor space. Interestingly, designation of the building would not be a productive means of protecting this outdoor space at all, as the ILPC has made clear that historical designation only affects the front face of the building, not the side or rear. We understand how deeply appreciated that outdoor space is and sees it as a great asset to preserve as part of any redevelopment effort. In fact, we see redevelopment of the site as an opportunity to maintain but reimagine the outdoor space to better address the relationship between the building and the sidewalk, in order to greatly improve the overall aesthetics and flow of the corner. Intent (5) Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of modes of transportation other than single-occupancy automobiles. The location of the building is the most desirable off-campus building in terms of walkability to campus. Designation would not change that, but would limit the number of tenants who could take advantage of the location. As discussed, redevelopment would greatly increase the number of tenants who could be housed at this prime location. More people housed in a walkable location reduces the need for reliance on vehicles. With respect to the impact on our organization, we firmly believe that a landmark designation would create a significant hardship for our organization. As outlined in the attached letter, we are an independent not-for-profit organization that is not formally connected to Cornell nor supported by grand funding. Instead, funding for our mission is solely dependent on the rental income that we can generate from our properties, and 70% of that rental income comes from 411-415 College Ave. Thus, a landmark designation, which would limit our ability to redevelop the property and require significant façade rehabilitation investments, would have a direct negative impact on our ability to fund and grow our mission for the next hundred years. Finally, in the spirit of openness and transparency, I should note that we recently asked Holt Architects to provide a preliminary massing, materials, and context study to explore how a new building on the site could express the very factors that make the block a great one: 1) buildings that present roughly the same height, 2) a ground floor brick base story, 3) light earth-tones upper stories and a slot between buildings 4) direct design references to older buildings such as horizontal elements, fenestration pattern, façade organization, and design features. We look forward to sharing and discussing some of these materials with the Planning and Development Board on August 22nd. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Chief Executive Officer Student Agencies 1 July 3, 2017 Bryan McCracken Historic Preservation Planner City of Ithaca, Planning Division Dear Bryan, On behalf of Student Agencies, thank you for the opportunity to engage in an open and meaningful discussion with the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) regarding the potential designation of our property at 411-415 College Avenue as an individual local landmark. As a nearly 125-year old not- for-profit organization and community member, we certainly understand and respect the importance of preservation and proper stewardship of historical entities. At the same time, though, we also feel that it is important that preservation initiatives be properly balanced with broader community objectives and take into consideration the potential impact on property owners. With that in mind, and with the help of numerous consultants, architects, historians, and engineers, we have spent a considerable amount of time and energy over the past few weeks educating ourselves on the landmarking process and researching the property from both an architectural and historical perspective. Having now completed that work, and after carefully weighing our findings against the ILPC’s arguments for designation, as outlined in the Historic Resource Inventory Form, we feel strongly that the arguments for designation do not rise to the standard necessary to justify a formal designation. Particularly when weighed against the short and long-term hardship that a designation would pose to Student Agencies given our limited resources, and particularly considering that a landmark designation would be wholly inconsistent with the Collegetown land use and economic vitality goals as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning. Our specific arguments against designation are detailed in this letter and research report, which we submit for the purposes of the record. To summarize, however: • The arguments for designation do not rise to the standard necessary to justify a listing o Our research does not support the idea that the owner was historically significant o Our research does not support the idea that the designer was historically significant o Our research does not support the idea that 411-415 College Ave is a unique representation of a historically significant period in the history of Collegetown o An evaluation by two separate professional construction firms determined that architectural elements have moved away from their attachments and the masonry envelope has exceeded its serviceable life o An evaluation by a professional preservation architect found significant issues with the exterior finish, calling into question the historical integrity of the façade • Designation would create a short and long-term hardship for Student Agencies o The income from 411-415 generates 70% of the mission funding for the organization o The opportunity cost of designation is estimated to be $ 8.5 million o Repairing the façade to extend its serviceable life would require significant investment o According to experts, maintaining and building around the façade (i.e. an overbuild) would add $ 1.5 - $ 2.0 million to the project cost and would result in a 6-month extension to the schedule 2 • Designation would not be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning o Redevelopment without designation, however, would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and new zoning; in particular, the housing density and economic vitality goals Regarding the arguments for designation specifically, we believe that they are very weak on their own merits. In short, the main arguments for designation are: 1) the original owner of the buildings, John Chacona, was a historically significant local figure, 2) the architect, John Wilgus, was a historically significant local architect, 3) the buildings represent a period of time in Collegetown when boarding houses were transitioning to apartment buildings, and 4) the buildings are a good example of early twentieth-century Renaissance Revival style. • With respect to John N. Chacona, we have completed exhaustive research of local records, including newspaper and History Center records. While we found more information on other Chacona family members, the only meaningful mention of John N. Chacona that we could find was in his wife’s obituary that referenced the fact that he predeceased her. • With respect to John Wilgus, our research did indicate that he was an active local architect, known as much for designing homes as buildings. However, our research also indicated that experts have not deemed Mr. Wilgus a historically significantly designer in the past. For instance, the well- respected Snodderly text, Ithaca and Its Past, dedicates a section to “major architects”, defined as “those who had designed at least two noteworthy buildings by 1930.” The list does not include Mr. Wilgus. Also, when the West State Historic District was designated in February of 2015, Mr. Wilgus was not noted as a “designer whose work had significantly influenced an age”, even though one of his houses was in the district. This makes us question the true significance of Mr. Wilgus, as argued in the Historic Resource Inventory Form. • With respect to idea that the 411-415 College Ave buildings represent a historically significant period in Collegetown (i.e. the transition from boarding houses to apartment houses and the development of Collegetown as a neighborhood independent of downtown Ithaca), our research indicates that there are at least seven (7) other buildings in Collegetown that were built during the same period, replacing wood-framed houses with 3-4 story apartment buildings with commercial space on the street level. Three of them (402, 414 and 426 Eddy Street), in fact, are already listed in the East Hill Historic District. • Finally, with respect to the idea that the buildings are a good example of early twentieth-century Renaissance Revival style, an assessment conducted by Elise Johnson-Schmidt, a preservation architect from Corning, identified issues with the current textured stucco exterior finish that makes her “question the integrity of the wall finish and windows” and conclude “that both the windows and façade finish have been replaced”. As she points out in her report, “Had the builder’s Greek heritage influenced the use of stucco for the façade finish, I would have expected a deeper window-plane-to-façade-finish-plane than what is seen here, as well as a much more massive wall appearance that what exists today.” While we believe that the arguments for designation do not meet the standard for designation on their own merits, the “thinness” of the arguments becomes even more problematic when considering the importance of the buildings to Student Agencies’ not-for-profit mission and the hardship that a listing would pose to 3 the organization. This is due to Student Agencies’ unique funding model. As an educational not-for-profit organization, completely independent of the University, Student Agencies does not receive any material funding from the University, alumni, grants, or any other source. Our sole source of funding, which we use to fund our mission, comes from the net income that we can generate from our three buildings in Collegetown; and, the two buildings under consideration for designation, 411-415 College Ave, generate approximately 70% of that income. Thus, given that highest use analysis suggests that a new building design at just 80% lot coverage could add as much as an additional 34,000 square feet, at $ 250/sq. ft., the opportunity cost of designating 411-415 College Ave, our largest and primary asset for funding our mission, would be about $ 8.5 million. In other words, 411-415 College Ave is Student Agencies’ single biggest asset and directly generates 70% of our mission funding. So, while we are not completely focused on maximizing the economic returns of the buildings and are willing to forego some economic return for other mission-related benefits (e.g. maintaining outdoor gathering space for the community), we fear that the staggering opportunity costs associated with a landmark designation would significantly restrict our ability to execute and grow our mission for the next hundred years. The issue is not just one of opportunity cost, though. We have spoken to many local owners and developers who have gone through the designation process, and we have consulted with various engineers and architects on the topic of an overbuild – adding to the property while maintaining the original building – and every person independently confirmed to us that developing the property under designation would be significantly more expensive and significantly more time-consuming than redeveloping the property without a landmark designation. The simple truth is that, as a small independent not-for-profit organization, we simply do not have the financial or human resources to bear the additional costs of designation. More specifically, a designation would put Student Agencies in a very tough spot. We are already spending nearly $ 50,000 annually to maintain the buildings and we know that the buildings, particularly the shared façade, are in extremely poor condition. As outlined in the structural reports from Taitem Engineering and Morse Project Management, just repairing the façade to extend its serviceable life would require significant investment. And, according to Edger Enterprise’s assessment, while maintaining and building around the façade (i.e. an overbuild) would not be recommended given the condition of the façade, if were to be attempted, it would “add $ 1.5 to $ 2.0 million dollars to the project cost and would result in a 6-month extension to the construction schedule.” Thus, attempting an overbuild under a designation would not be economically viable for Student Agencies given our limited resources, nor would foregoing redevelopment and simply repairing and maintaining the current buildings in perpetuity. Finally, it seems very clear to us that a landmark designation of 411-415 College Ave would be completely inconsistent with goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning in terms of increasing density and economic vitality in Collegetown. Redevelopment, however, in the form of a new sustainable building that is designed with sensitivity to the surrounding environment, but which meets modern safety codes and ADA regulations, would be extremely consistent with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning. It would create much-needed higher density housing in the heart of Collegetown, which would help to offset the supply/demand imbalance and lower housing prices. It would create more economic vitality in Collegetown, increasing the existing customer base for local merchants and perhaps attracting other desired businesses to the neighborhood, while increasing the amount of property tax paid. Moreover, it would meet sustainability goals by replacing an energy-greedy dinosaur building, powered by natural gas, with a new energy-efficient building built to modern standards. It is our view that this would be better and safer for the student residents, more attractive to the local merchants, and better for the community as a whole. 4 In summary, while we appreciate the goals of preservation, we do not support a landmark designation of our buildings at 411-415 College Ave. We believe that the arguments for designation are very thin, and we believe that a designation would pose significant hardship for Student Agencies in both the short and long-term. Designation, in our view, would also be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and new Collegetown zoning. With that said, however, I would like to point out that Student Agencies has a proven track record of not only being a valuable contributor to the community for nearly 125 years; but, has also demonstrated an openness and willingness to work collaboratively with the City and other community stakeholders. For example, while designing the eHub space last year, we met with City representatives early in the design process and adopted (at a six-figure cost) significant design changes that were proposed. Whether it be our conscious decision to pay property taxes despite being a not-for-profit entity, made in the spirit of prioritizing being a good community member and paying our fair share; or, whether it be supporting the local community last summer by sponsoring and funding the pop-up park in Collegetown, we always strive to be not only good stewards of the Student Agencies legacy; but, a strong contributing community member as well. It is in that spirit that we request that the landmark designation of 411-415 College Ave be rejected. Instead, we encourage the City to work collaboratively with us as we develop a redevelopment plan for the property that all stakeholders – Student Agencies, the City, Collegetown merchants and residents, Cornell – can be proud of. Particularly given the strong design review processes already in place with the Planning Board and staff, we believe that this approach is the only viable path forward for Student Agencies and would result in the best possible outcome for the City and local Collegetown community. For your review, we have captured the details of our research and findings in the attached four-part summary. The first part provides background on the mission and scope of Student Agencies, including the importance of 411-415 College Ave as our major asset and sole source of mission funding. The second part includes information on the condition of the buildings in order to better understand the costs and complexities of repairing and/or maintaining a historically designated building in perpetuity. The third part outlines the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Collegetown Form Districts Code, and maps the consistency of redevelopment of 411-415 College Ave to those goals and objectives. And, finally, part four addresses the specific historical designation arguments as outlined in the Historic Resource Inventory Form. Also, please note the Appendix, where we have compiled the roughly 60 community support letters that we have received from various stakeholders; including, Collegetown merchants and residents, Cornell partners and Student Agencies alumni. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions concerning the document. Otherwise, again, thank you for your flexibility throughout this process and thank you for your careful consideration of our position concerning this matter. Sincerely, Kyle Karnes Chief Executive Officer Student Agencies PARKING AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of the __th day of August, 2017 by and between Unity Inn, LLC (d/b/a Argos Inn), a New York limited liability company with offices at 408 East State, Ithaca, NY 14850, and East State LLC, a New York limited liability company with offices at 416-418 East State Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. WHEREAS, Unity Inn, LLC is the owner in fee simple absolute of certain real property located in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, known as 408 East State Street, City of Ithaca, State of New York, Tax Map Parcel 69.-2-19, on which property is located a parking lot (the “Parking Lot”); and WHEREAS, East State, LLC is the owner in fee simple absolute of certain real property located in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins and State of New York, known as 416-418 East State Street, City of Ithaca, State of New York, Tax Map Parcel 69.-2-18, on which property is located a mixed-use building (the “416 Building”); and WHEREAS, as of May 26, 2016, East State, LLC and Unity Inn, LLC entered into a parking agreement for East State, LLC’s office tenants to use 16 parking spaces in the Parking Lot between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM; and WHEREAS, East State, LLC has determined that a portion of the space in the 416 Building will be used as assembly space rather than as office space; and WHEREAS, East State, LLC is required to provide 16 parking spaces for its assembly space with reasonable access to the 416 Building, and East State, LLC wishes to enter into an agreement with Unity Inn, LLC for 16 parking spaces within the Parking Lot, and wishes for such agreement to provide for use of these 16 parking spaces to be permitted between the hours of 9:00 PM and 2:00 AM and 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM Saturday and Sunday; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties to this Agreement, for themselves and for their successors and/or assigns, hereby agree as follows: Unity Inn, LLC hereby agrees to allow East State, LLC’s tenants to use Sixteen (16) parking spaces in the Parking Lot for use for East State, LLC’s operation of its assembly space and will be located on the East side of the Parking Lot. The Sixteen (16) parking spaces on the East side of the Parking Lot to be used for East State, LLC’s operation of its assembly space shall be available for such use between 9:00 PM and 2:00 AM seven days per week, and 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM Saturday and Sunday. See Appendix A and B for reference to the location of the parking spaces that are subject to this Agreement. The following terms shall apply to the use of parking spaces under this Agreement: ● Unity Inn, LLC will provide the Sixteen (16) parking spaces for the use for East State, LLC’s operation of its assembly space at a rental rate of $50/month per space or at market rate. ● Users of East State, LLC’s assembly space shall have the use of the sixteen (16) parking spaces as well as the driving aisle in the Parking Lot for temporary off-street loading and unloading by trucks between 9:00 PM and 2:00 AM seven days per week and 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM Saturday and Sunday. ● East State, LLC shall be responsible for any towing of vehicles parked by users of its assembly space between 4:00 PM and 9:00 PM required to free up the Sixteen (16) parking spaces available for the use by users of Unity Inn, LLC under this Agreement. ● Unity Inn, LLC shall be responsible for any towing required to free up the Sixteen (16) parking spaces available for the users of East State, LLC’s assembly space under this Agreement between 9:00 PM and 2:00 AM seven days per week and between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM Saturday and Sunday. ● This Agreement shall be binding for a period of five (5) years and for so long thereafter as the remaining term of then effective agreements for use of the assembly space at the 416 Building. Thereafter, use of spaces in the Parking Lot by tenants under any new agreements for use of the assembly space at the 416 Building will require, at the option of Unity Inn, LLC, renewal of this Agreement. Unity Inn, LLC must provide 6 months written notice if it will not renew this Agreement. ● The number of spaces assigned for use may change in relation to any change in parking requirements or relocation of parking in accordance with applicable City Zoning requirements. ● This agreement is binding upon, and will inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns as owners of their respective parcels. ● East State, LLC will indemnify Unity Inn, LLC and its successors and assigns from any damage or injury arising from the use of the Parking Lot. ● East State LLC understands and acknowledges that a parking agreement is required for compliance with parking requirements under the City's zoning ordinance and with the site plan approved under Limited Site Plan Approval. In the event of termination of this parking agreement, East State LLC, its successors and assigns, must cease operations of the uses dependent upon a zoning compliant parking agreement until it has obtained approval of an alternate site plan addressing parking or a variance from parking requirements. ● East State LLC also understands and acknowledges that a change of use of any portion of the 416 Building may result in this Agreement no longer satisfying the City’s parking requirements. Before East State LLC may commence such a change of use, East State LLC must comply with the City’s parking requirements for such use, and to do so may require the City’s approval of alternate parking arrangements, which alternate parking arrangements may include obtaining a parking agreement that permits parking after 4:00 PM. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written. UNITY INN, LLC By: ___________________________________ Avi Smith, Managing Member EAST STATE, LLC By: __________________________________ Benjamin Rosenblum, Managing Member \ STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On the ____th day of August in the year 2017 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Avi Smith, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the same. ___________________________ Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) On the ____th day of August in the year 2017 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Benjamin Rosenblum, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the same. ___________________________ Notary Public January 26, 2016, Updated August 7, 2017 EAST STATE LLCIthaca, NY ARGOS INN + 416-418 EAST STATE BUILDINGUSE TYPES + SHARED PARKING APPENDIX A NOTE: NOT TO SCALE FOR DIAGRAMMATIC PURPOSES ONLY USE TYPES SHARED PARKING 416 BUILDING: RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE 24 HRS 416 BUILDING: OFFICE PARKING SPACES WEEKDAYS 8AM TO 4PM Argos Inn: Hotel Parking Spaces 24 Hours 16 Spaces 15 Spaces OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 APT. ABOVE OFFICE 1 OFFICE 4 LOBBY HOTEL ROOMS BAR ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE Argos Parking Lot APT. Fl. 02 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 HC HC HC 1 408 E. State St.416-418 E. State St. 1 HOTEL ROOMS BAR ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE LOBBY EVENTOFFICE 4EVENT STORAGE + ACCESSORY 16 Spaces 15 Spaces OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 APT. ABOVE OFFICE 1 OFFICE 4 LOBBY HOTEL ROOMS BAR ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE Argos Parking Lot APT. Fl. 02 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 HC HC HC 1 408 E. State St.416-418 E. State St. 416 BUILDING: RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE 24 HRS Argos Inn: Hotel Parking Spaces 24 Hours Argos Inn: Bar Argos Parking Spaces 4PM to 9PM 1 HOTEL ROOMS BAR ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE LOBBY EVENT STORAGE + ACCESSORY West Side 15 Spaces ARGOS INN 416 BUILDING 408 E. State St. OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 APT. ABOVE OFFICE 1 OFFICE 4 HOTEL ROOMS BAR 416-418 E. State St. Argos Parking Lot ARGOS INN and PRINTING PRESS Use Types APT. Fl. 02 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 HC HC 1 HC ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE LOBBY East Side 16 Spaces EVENT STORAGE + ACCESSORY 416 BUILDING: RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE 24 HRS 416 BUILDING: EVENT PARKING SPACES 9PM TO 2AM, WEEKENDS 8AM TO 4PM Argos Inn: Hotel Parking Spaces 24 Hours 16 Spaces 15 Spaces OFFICE 2 OFFICE 3 APT. ABOVE OFFICE 1 OFFICE 4 LOBBY HOTEL ROOMS BAR ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE Argos Parking Lot APT. Fl. 02 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 HC HC HC 1 408 E. State St.416-418 E. State St. 1 HOTEL ROOMS BAR ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS ABOVE LOBBY EVENTOFFICE 4 STORAGE + ACCESSORY EVENT ARGOS HOTEL ROOMS+LOBBY BAR ARGOS 416-418 E. STATE RESIDENCE 416-418 E. STATE OFFICE 416-418 E. STATE EVENT