Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2019-09-24 Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes September 24, 2019 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Jack Elliott; Mitch Glass; Matthew Johnston; Emily Petrina Board Members Absent: None Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Harold Square Eric Ekman, McGuire Development Scott Selin, CJS Architects Student Housing – 815 S. Aurora Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Charlie O’Connor, Modern Living Rentals Todd Fox, Visum Development Student Apartments – 238 Dryden Road Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Brandon Ebel, Stream Collaborative Todd Fox, Visum Development Immaculate Conception Redevelopment (Mixed Use Housing) 320 W Buffalo Street Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative Brandon Ebel, Stream Collaborative Lynn Truame, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 2 Carpenter Circle Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC Yamila Fournier, Whitham Planning & Design City Harbor – 101 Pier Road David Herrick, T.G. Miller, Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning & Design Dave Kruse, SRF Associates Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects Linc Morse, developer Elizabeth Ambrose, developer Mixed Use Student Apartments – 411-415 College Ave Scott Whitham, Whitham Planning & Design Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning & Design Steve Hugo, HOLT Architects Kyle Karnes, CEO Student Agencies Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. Agenda Review Deputy Director Nicholas said there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Special Order of Business – Green Building Code – Presentation & Discussion, Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator Sustainability Coordinator Nick Goldsmith appeared in front of the Board to make a presentation on the Green Building Code. He said that greenhouse gas emissions make up three-quarters of the city’s carbon footprint and buildings are a key sector to address in order to reduce GHG emissions. He said he’s been working with the City and Town to create a policy that is flexible, affordable, impactful, and achievable – on both the developers’ side and on the code enforcement side. He said that the last time he appeared in front of the Board, it was to present the Green Building Policy Report, created over a year with a team of consultants. The core of that document was a series of policy recommendations for an energy code (Phase I). He said Phase II started with those recommendations and they have since fleshed those out, added detail where needed, and now have the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement out for public comment. He said the document is intended to contain the content of the code in an easy-to-understand format. He said the public comment period will close at the end of the month, and that they will be modifying the Code Supplement to reflect the comments they receive, as well as working with the City Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 3 Attorneys to formalize the language into official City Code. The goal is to create one unified code that applies to both the City and Town of Ithaca. Goldsmith said that the Green Building Policy will apply to all new construction, and all projects would have to comply with all New York State building and energy codes. The City’s Green Building Code would aim for an approximately 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions at the building level, and would become progressively more stringent, requiring further reductions to 80 percent in 2025 and achieving net-zero by 2030. Discussions are ongoing for how to incentivize people going above and beyond the requirements. Goldsmith next discussed the two methods for compliance – the point system and the whole building path (meeting the standards of a third-party certification, such as LEED, though actual certification is not required). All new construction, major renovations, and all additions over 1,000 square feet and single-family and duplex additions of over 500 square feet would have to comply. He said that under the policy as written, historic buildings would be exempt, but after getting input from the Historic Preservation Planner Bryan McCracken and the ILPC, they are considering not exempting historic properties automatically, but rather providing an appeals process whereby they may be exempted if they cannot meet the requirements. That is because it may actually be easier to meet these requirements than it would be to meet the State energy code (which does exempt historic properties). Goldsmith said the Code would go into effect 6 months after it is adopted. Goldsmith said that the City passed the Green New Deal in June, which will aim for carbon neutrality by 2030. He said that to meet that target and conform to the Paris agreement, the City will have to consider how to bring existing buildings into alignment with these targets. Goldsmith then reviewed the requirements for complying with the point system (easy path), as well as the “whole building” path, before opening to questions from the Board. Jones asked if there is long-term enforcement for existing accreditation systems like LEED or HERS or if it is all done at the time of construction. She said that factoring in something like off- site renewables seems outside of a standard scope. Goldsmith said that no, there is no long-term enforcement of LEED or HERS, but that any developer who walks into City Hall or Town Hall to apply for a building permit will be reminded that they will have to comply with this policy throughout the process, and they will be unable to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy if they do not. He said that under the current plan, that is where the process stops. He said that is why they are struggling with something like off-site renewables. He said ASHRAE is developing some guidelines, that involves long-term contracts that survive transfer of ownership, and they are looking at including similar language in the policy. He said they are looking to balance the desire to see long-term use of renewable energy against how easily (and feasibly) they will be able to enforce it. Elliott said that one certification he doesn’t see listed is the Living Building Challenge. He also said that some of those certifications can’t be obtained until the building has been operated for at Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 4 least a year, so you can’t come in as an engineer and sign off that a building has met the LEED requirements before it has been operating for a year. He said he thinks they are going to have to find a workaround for that. Elliott also said that he thinks some of the certification systems conflict with some of the requirements of the point system, for example, having a long building with southern exposure with 80 percent glazing on the southern exposure and only 10-15 percent on the north. He said they wouldn’t have the right fenestration to get a point and asked if in that case they would have to go through Passive House instead. Goldsmith said you could use the Passive House standards because they are extremely stringent. Elliott said that some of the items on the point system would conflict with other standards for certification. Goldsmith said flexibility is the intent. For some projects, the point system might work best, for others, pursuing LEED might make more sense, but the end goal of reducing GHG emissions is the same. Elliott said again that for some standards, like LEED, the building has to operate for a year to get the certification, but the City or Town Boards approve projects on how they are to be built. He asked if a developer builds a building to perform a certain way, but it doesn’t, then what? Goldsmith said that right now, the process stops with the C of O, but the questions of reporting and verification have come up. He said they want to track the program for its effectiveness, but they haven’t got that in place at present. Elliott said NYC did an energy baseline study of the existing built environment. He asked if that is something Ithaca would be pursuing. Goldsmith said yes, the City will be exploring benchmarking. Getting that information is at the top of the list in order to have that data inform future policy. Petrina said that reducing room size and overall building size is listed in the point system. She said she sees a potential conflict for the Board and developers, especially with respect to affordable housing, for which the Board is always pushing developers to make the rooms bigger and more livable, but under this path, they would be encouraged to make them smaller. She said that it’s not really so much a comment for him as it is something that she thinks the Board needs to be aware of and learn how to balance those interests. Goldsmith urged her to look at the values in the code, and he said that the policy has been reviewed by planning staff and the building and codes people from both the City and the Town, and everyone so far has been on board with the concept, and it’s not contradictory to State policies or City code. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 5 Elliott said that water conservation should be part of any energy conservation program, because it takes energy to treat, filter, and deliver. He said it would be helpful to marry water conservation to the energy conservation requirements, and encourage households to, for example, recycle water, as doing so would reduce demand and save energy use at the water treatment plant. Goldsmith said that they had considered it, and that there are some requirements around water included in the Green Building Policy Report, but after the report was published, they learned that most of those were already stipulated at the same level in the State code. He said there was only one where they might have made the requirement more stringent but that would have been a heavy lift because it would have required changing the building code, and it’s challenging to get approved a local building code that’s more stringent than the State’s. He said the State building code is actually pretty good on this. Elliott disagreed, saying that he doesn’t think the State code is adequate. There are no requirements for separate grey water systems. Chair Lewis said that he appreciates the level of flexibility that seems to be baked in to the policy, that it provides developers with multiple ways to get at the goals. He said that one of the nice things about it being set up as a point system is that it seems like you can add additional requirements later on. There being no further comments from the Board, Chair Lewis thanked Goldsmith for his time. 3. Privilege of the Floor Chair Lewis opened Privilege of the Floor. Joel Harlan of 318 S. Albany Street spoke in favor of development in Ithaca. He said that we need more business downtown and that downtown should look more like Collegetown. He spoke in favor of both colleges adding dorm capacity so they could continue to increase the student population. He also said that new buildings are safer than old ones in the event of a fire. Michael Belmont of 119 Belcoda Drive, Rochester, said that he and his family would be moving to Ithaca soon, and he spoke in opposition to the student apartment project proposed for 815 S. Aurora Street. He said he supports the Dennis’ position that the site is unsuitable for the proposed development. He said he has served on the Irondequoit BZA for seven years, five as chair. He urged the Board not to approve the site plan as proposed. He said that the project appears to have been given special consideration, with a leaning towards economic development, possibly in the face of safety issues. He said that the code is like the wall in Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall” – it’s not intended to keep people apart but rather allow them to live peaceably together. He urged the Board to take a step back, be circumspect, and ask themselves if they have stewarded the code properly in this case. Peter Penniman of 106 Grandview Place spoke about 815 S Aurora. He said that he and his wife are finally moving into their house after completing some renovations. He said as a Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 6 longtime landlord in Ithaca, he understands that rents are high, more housing is needed, and developments like this should help reduce rents across the city at some point in the future, but as residents of this neighborhood, he said they are shocked by the scale of the project and how close it is to the neighboring houses. He said parking is also a concern, and it seems likely that tenants and visitors who can’t find parking in the lot will end up parking on neighboring streets, including Grandview. He said noise is also a concern, and not limited to parties or music, but simply the ambient noise from 66 apartments is a big issue if you’re only 40 feet away (like they will be). He also asked how Building A ended up with only a 10-foot rear setback from the property line. He also expressed concern about solar shading, saying that Building A would put them in shade on winter afternoons, and he said the solar studies submitted did not include their house. He said the shading will be even more severe for the neighbors to the west of his house (north of Building A), and the sun will rarely even reach his house in the winter. He said he knows the Board has been sympathetic to these concerns but they are obligated to follow the codes as they are written and interpreted, so perhaps the neighbors need to take their concerns to Common Council since this process has failed to produce a building that is suitable for the neighborhood Susan Fritts of 106 Grandview Place spoke in opposition to the apartment project proposed at 815 S. Aurora Street. She said there seems to be no moral or ethical consideration for the negative impacts of it on the neighborhood. She said that she is also concerned about the parking being insufficient, as they already have problems with parking on Grandview Place. She said traffic is also a concern as well. Roger Dennis of 1075 Taughannock Boulevard also spoke in opposition to the apartment project proposed at 815 S. Aurora Street. His comments were submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. Susan Holland, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, spoke about the proposed redevelopment of 411-415 College Avenue (The Chacona Block). She said the building has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register by the State Historic Preservation Office. She said that Student Agencies has agreed to mitigations for the loss of historic fabric in a Memorandum of Committment. Holland asked that the Planning Board and Planning Department work to utilize and enforce the Collegetown Design Guidelines in their review of any proposed redevelopment. The property is within the Collegetown core and is also considered a gateway building, meaning at least three guides must be utilized: achieve excellence in design, design for compatibility and respond to context, and design for sustainability. Additionally, the 400-block of College Ave has been identified as a design exemplar for maintaining scale that reflects elements of the nearby traditional buildings. She said that in discussions with the design team, she said that she said the design should be spectacular and that it aid in the revitalization of Collegetown. She asked that the Planning Board uphold the design guidelines so that the best possible building will result. She said that the public space be preserved, and said that the site must be active year-round. The existing building has been a strong hub, and the replacement must be as well. Christine O’Malley of Historic Ithaca spoke about the Chacona Block. She said that some of the Board members are aware that in cultural resource management and historic preservation Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 7 best practices that when a building or site with historic significance is going to be demolished, mitigation is included as part of the site redevelopment. She said that because the SHPO determined that the site is eligible for listing on the National Register, Historic Ithaca is asking that the City require the owner to complete mitigation as part of the site’s redevelopment. A preservation architect or cultural resources management firm should complete photo documentation of the building, as well as HABS-level documentation with drawings (plans, sections, and elevations), along with a full building history report, and these documents should be shared and distributed to the State Historic Preservation Office, the City Historic Preservation Planner’s Office, the History Center, and Historic Ithaca. In the Memorandum of Commitment signed by Student Agencies on October 26, 2017, SA agreed to the creation and installation of a plaque commemorating the history of the site would be part of their redevelopment plans. She said that Historic Ithaca urges the Planning Board to require such signage. Cathy Crane of 108 Grendview Place spoke in opposition to the apartment project proposed at 815 S. Aurora Street. Her comments were submitted in writing and are included as an addendum to these minutes. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed Privilege of the Floor. 4. Site Plan Review A. Harold Square Mixed Use, 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E State Street (The Commons), by David Lubin. Approval of Conditions. The applicant received approval for project changes on February 26, 2019. The applicant has submitted materials to satisfy conditions of the approval. Applicants Eric Ekman of McGuire Development and Scott Selin of CJS Architects appeared to present project updates to the Board. They proposed not including a screen wall on the rooftop mechanicals on the fifth floor roof. Jones said she is concerned about the precedent this might set, even though the applicants have succeeded in shielding these from the street below. She said that she thinks screening mechanicals both for aesthetics and for safety (reducing tampering) is wise. Blalock said that he thinks that if it’s only going to be visible to tenants of the building, it seems like it is the concern of the applicant. It’s their business decision. Johnston said he generally agrees with that. He asked if any of the sixth-floor windows would be operable. Applicants said yes. Johnston said that then protecting the residents from the drone of those units might be a consideration. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 8 Chair Lewis said he generally agrees, but he thinks the applicants would have had an easier time in front of the Board if they had presented views with and without screening, showing that the screening alternative really does make the view worse for the tenants on the sixth floor. He said right now the Board only has the applicants’ word. Glass said he agrees with Blalock. Petrina said she is in favor of screening, and she thinks there’s a way to do it with smaller screens that are removable for maintenance. Chair Lewis said it seems like the Board has a narrow 4-3 split on the screening question. He said that since the applicants have to return for other conditions, he thinks they should submit drawings showing both options. Applicants next shared elevations showing the courtyard and first floor façade of the Sage building. They said they had worked closely with Historic Preservation Planner Bryan McCracken to develop the design. Board members generally reacted favorably. Elliott said the lighting shown in the renderings is wrong and suggested they render the lighting accurately. He said that because of the orientation of the courtyard, it will probably be pretty dark, and they might want to consider supplemental lighting. Applicants next reviewed their proposal to use an artificial turf on the roof in a 12- to 15-foot strip out in front of the tenants’ windows. Elliott asked if there was any ballast out there. He asked if maybe good-looking quartz would look better than fake grass. He said real grass (living roof) would have benefits, but green synthetic PVC doesn’t do it for him. Jones said she somewhat agrees with Elliott. She asked if they could provide a view from a window. Petrina said it seems that this only affects tenants, so it is very much the same issue as the HVAC units. Chair Lewis agreed. Applicants said that per Elliott’s comments, they did look into a living roof, but the weight of it was prohibitive. Plus, with it being on the north side of the tower, they were concerned it would not get enough light. B. Student Housing, 815 S. Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative, Noah Demarest for Project Sponsors Todd Fox & Charlie O’Connor. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 9 Approval. The project applicant proposes a new 66-unit student housing complex (approximately 17,900 SF footprint) comprised of three buildings constructed on hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) one-bedroom units, (41) two-bedroom units, and (23) three-bedroom units. Amenities will include a gym and media room, with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of building B, and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of building B. The project shares the 2.85-acre site with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an office, and a one-bedroom apartment. Site improvements will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire truck access is proposed at existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 67 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property located in the R-3b zoning district. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11) for which the Planning Board as Lead Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on July 23, 2019. Applicants Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative, Todd Fox of Visum Development, Charlie O’Connor of Modern Living Rentals, and Adam Fishel of Marathon Engineering appeared in front of the Board to present project updates and answer questions. O’Connor addressed some of the comments they heard during Privilege of the Floor. He said that he understands that the Board likes to see applicants meet with the neighbors but some of the comments are disheartening. As to the setbacks, they are conforming with the zoning requirements. He said that the project was not developed in a bubble. It’s been reviewed by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Division. He said Common Council approved the changes to the fall zone ordinance, allowing this project to move forward. He said they spent three years studying safety issues before bringing this project forward. He said they hired experts and engineers to study the “what-ifs” of the cell tower, and looked at regulations at multiple municipalities to see the rules they follow, and this is actually a more conservative fall zone than what you will see in most areas of the state. He said they have also spent a lot of time looking at the safety of the buildings as well. The project could have come forward as a wood frame building, but it’s not. It’s type 2-A construction, non-combustible. He said they have accommodated the comments and advice of the first responders and have incorporated a fire lane to accommodate first responder vehicles, upgraded the sprinkler type, and the standpipe and stair tower go to the roof. He also said that the stair tower is rated for three hours, so acts like a standalone building. He said this is going to be one of the safest buildings in the City. He concluded by saying that this property has been zoned this way for about 30 years, and it’s very challenging when you bring forward a zoning compliant project to face so much opposition. Demarest then reviewed changes to the project made since the last meeting. He said they changed the cultured stone to brick in response to the comment that the building “resembled a hotel.” He said they also removed the large cornice (stucco covered foam), and any other applied foam from the project. He said they also dropped the cornice down a story and used a cementitious material, and changed the construction type on the uppermost story from concrete to metal stud walls, allowing them to set the wall in, an architectural change. They also changed Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 10 the skin on the fourth floor to metal panels. He then reviewed some revised elevations with the Board. He also reviewed additional changes to materials and colors, and explained ways they planned on minimizing light pollution from the project. Petrina disclosed that she shares a structural engineer with Roger Dennis, but she doesn’t think it impacts her vote, as there is no financial tie. Director Cornish said that her office overlooks the Library, and the EFIS there gets very dirty and stained, and she suggested they keep that in mind when developing a maintenance plan. She also asked if the bridge is glass. Demarest said yes, it’s glass. Deputy Director Nicholas said she’s concerned about light from the north stair tower spilling light over into the neighbors’ yard. She said sometimes they’ve seen that problem in the past where light fixtures glare down on lower buildings next door. She asked if they had plans to address that. She said the other one shouldn’t be a problem because there’s nothing next to it. Demarest said that the stairwells would have motion activated lights, and he is willing to look for other ways to minimize possible glare. Elliott asked if the applicants wanted to respond to a letter from Russell Maines submitted earlier that day. Demarest said they had appeared at a meeting with the State Fire Board [Department of State, Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code Board of Review] the week prior to apply for a variance for the fire lane. He said that this is the type of variance that would typically be granted without a hearing, but in this case, Fire Chief Parsons suggested they go to the Board and state their case. Parsons also chairs the board, so he recused himself, and spoke in favor of the variance. Director of Code Enforcement Mike Niechwiadowicz was also present and stated his support for the project. He said he thinks there can be differences of opinion on how code enforcement looks at these issues, which is why they went to the State. He said that they did grant the variance. O’Connor said that he thinks the Board should look at the full transcripts of that hearing to get a better understanding of what was said. He said that a lot of what the code enforcement officer expressing concerns was incorrect, as he had never been to the site. He said Parsons corrected him on his erroneous comments and defended the safety of the buildings as proposed. Chair Lewis asked how Board members felt about adding a condition requiring applicants to monitor structural stability of the cell phone tower during construction. Board agreed. Elliott also suggested monitoring foundations of neighboring buildings as well. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 11 O’Connor said they can talk with their engineers about that, but they would not be driving piles, which is typically where a lot of vibrations come from. He said they can have a third-party monitoring company checking on vibration and noise levels. Glass said that he thinks the design changes have made it a much better project. He said he is not concerned about the cell tower presenting a threat to safety. He said he is tired of hearing about the parking and he thinks there’s enough parking, although he understands that could create issues in the neighborhood. He asked Cornish and Nicholas if there are mechanisms to assist with that – residential permits, signage, etc. He concluded by addressing the comment about the Board “not being moral or ethical” in its deliberations, and he asked the public to refrain from bringing those sorts of comments in front of the Board because he thinks they are all quite moral/ethical and do their best to try to make these projects better. Chair Lewis apologized for not addressing that comment in the moment. He said that it is the Chair’s job to do so. Elliott agreed that the project has improved. He said he sympathizes with the neighbors’ concerns but that maybe that will change over time given its location on a busy highway, and its proximity to Chainworks. Chair Lewis said that he thinks the project has improved, and he supports it because it has density in a place that is appropriate for density. Jones said that she wants the public to know that she loses sleep when neighbors are upset by a project, and that the Board members are servants to the City, they are volunteers, and she takes offense to comments that they are lacking in ethics or morals. Jones said that in the bigger picture, they have heard lots of comments that South Hill residents don’t want students living in their neighborhood, that they want more owner-occupied homes, and this project is a direct response to that, and to hear some of the very same neighbors come forward to say this project is inappropriate puts us in a difficult position. Jones thanked the applicant for the changes to the design, and she thinks they have improved the project a lot. She said that with respect to parking, they absolutely do not want to build to an antiquated standard, and this building, in this location, with the population it serves absolutely does not need more parking. She said she thinks they have satisfied the safety concerns, and that we need the housing in the City. Johnston said that the thinks the project will stand out at first but less so once the trees mature and the neighborhood develops further. He sympathized with the immediate neighbors who might be challenged by noise or by business competition, but he said any urban place must change to stay attractive and competitive. Blalock said he supports other members’ comments, and he agrees with Lewis that this is an appropriate place for density. He asked if the students don’t live here, where do they live? Sprinkled in back yards and side lots in infill developments? Do we put them out in Danby Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 12 somewhere? He said this puts a lot of students in a safe, modern building in walking distance to both downtown and campus. Adopted Resolution for Final Site Plan Approval On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a new 66-unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings, located at 815 South Aurora Street by Stream Collaborative on behalf of the owner, and WHEREAS: The project applicant proposes a new 66-unit student housing complex comprised of three buildings constructed on hillside on the east side of Route 96B, overlooking the proposed Chain Works District. The proposed buildings will contain (2) one-bedroom units, (41) two-bedroom units, and (23) three-bedroom units. Amenities will include a gym and media room, with access to an outdoor amenity space on the first floor of building B, and a roof terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of building B. The project shares the 2.85-acre site with an existing cell tower facility, garages, an office and a one-bedroom apartment. Site improvements will include walkways and curb cuts to be tied into a public sidewalk proposed by the Town of Ithaca. Fire truck access is proposed at existing site entry at the south end of the property, with a new fire lane to be constructed in front of the buildings A & B at the northern end of the site. The project will include 67 parking spaces, as required by zoning. The property is located in the R-3b Zoning District, and WHEREAS: this is Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (B)(2), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11), and WHEREAS: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Transportation, all potentially involved agencies in this action, all consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, and, WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on March 26, 2019 declare itself Lead Agency for 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 a required Public Hearing on April 23, 2019, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on July 23, 2019 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 and amended by the Planning Board, the following drawings: “Topographic Map, No. 815 South Aurora Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 9-26-16 and prepared by T.G. Miller P.C; “Demolition Plan (C1.0)”, “Site Plan (C2.0)”, “Site Plan Future Access (C2.1) (showing bike parking)”, “Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (C3.0 & 3.1)”, “Lighting Plan (C5.0)”, “Rock Plan (C6.0)”, “Detail Sheet (C9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4 & 9.5)”and “Driveway Plan (C10.0, 10.1, 10.2 & 10.3) with a latest revision date of 5-21-19; “Truck Plan (C8.0 & 8.1)’ with a latest revision date of 5-23-19 and “Utility Plan (C4.0)” with a latest revision date of 6-14-19 all prepared Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 13 by Marathon Engineering, and “Building A Unit Area Plans (A.00)”, “Building B Unit Area Plans (A.01)”, “Building A Exterior Elevations (A2.00)”, “Building B Exterior Elevations (A2.01)”, “Building A Sections (A3.01)” and “Building B Sections (A3.03)” dated 6-03-19 “Building C Unit Area Plans (A.00)”, “Building C Exterior Elevations (A2.00)”, “Building B Exterior Elevations (A2.01)” and “Building C Sections (A3.00)” dated 6-07-19, all prepared by Stream Collaborative et al; and “ Planting Plan (L103)’ dated 6-21-19; “site Sections (L301)’ dated 5-22-19, “Solar Study (A9.1, 9.2 & 9.3)”, Context Images (A9.4 & 9.5) dated 5-09-19; “ 815 Aurora Updated Drawings from the Public Way Submitted June 19, 2019”, and unattributed renderings showing the rooftop mechanicals layout and screening, hand dated 6-25-19, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly elaborated in the FEAF, that the proposed Project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and did issue a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: 25% landscaping rationale WHEREAS: the Planning Board did, on July 23, 2019 grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project. Such approval applied to the major elements of the site layout including building placement and footprints, location and design of major routes of site circulation pertaining to emergency access, personal, commercial and service vehicles, and pedestrians and bikes, grading and demolition, and placement of major hardscape features such as walls, patios, stairways, etc. Preliminary approval does not apply to the placement and arrangement of building façade features, building and hardscape materials and colors, planting plans, lighting, signage, site furnishings and other site details, and WHEREAS: Preliminary Approval for this project was subject to the following conditions: Before Final Site Plan Approval: i. Submission to the Planning Board of colored and keyed building elevations for all facades, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of documentation of the hours of operation of the exterior amenity spaces, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details including building materials and colors, signage, lighting, exterior furnishings, paving, wall and railing materials and details, and iv. Applicant to consider additional exterior bike racks, and v. Submission to the Board of the layout of covered bike parking, and vi. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer, and Before issuance of a Building Permit i. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed, and ii. Documentation of a binding commitment for winter sidewalk snow removal, and iii. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department and DOT that all transportation and emergency access issues have been satisfied, and Before Certificate of Occupancy iv. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and v. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and vi. Execution of a easement agreement between the City and the property owner for portions of the sidewalk on private property, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 14 vii. This site plan approval does not preclude any other permit that is required by City Code, such as sign permits, tree permits, street permits, etc., and WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting that the Planning Board review the proposed parking lot in the rear yard under the provisions of landscape compliance method in accordance with §325-20 F (3)(b) of the City Code. The Board has accepted the landscape compliance method in consideration of the following mitigating factors: • The applicant is proposing fencing and landscape plantings to screen the parking from the adjacent property WHEREAS: the Board has determined that 25% internal landscaping is not required within the parking lot due to the following reasons: • 25% Internal plantings would require a significantly larger overall parking area, and • There is a substantial amount of landscaped area surrounding the parking lot, and WHEREAS: the Board did, on August 27, 2019, after reviewing elevations of the buildings instruct the applicant to explore ways to reduce the apparent height and massing of the building, particularly ‘Building A’ as it abuts the residential property to the north. WHEREAS: the Planning Board, has on September 24, 2019 reviewed and accepted as the following new, and revised drawings: “1” showing the previous and proposed street level perspectives of the west façade of Building A, “2” showing the revised proposed street level perspectives of the west facades of Buildings A & B, “3” showing the revised proposed street level perspectives of the west facades of Buildings A, B and C, “4’ showing street level perspectives of the revised buildings A & B looking southeast, “Street View of Building A (5)”, “View of North Property Line (6)”, “View of Fire Lane Retaining Wall (7)”, “Building A Exterior Elevations (A2.00)”, “Building B Exterior Elevations (B2.00)” “Building C Exterior Elevations (A2.00)” and ‘Exterior Features” all dated 9-17-19 and “Enlarged Planting Plan (L302)” dated 8-6-19 and an undated and unattributed drawing showing the layout interior bike storage al “Site Plan (L001)” and ‘Site Layout and Building A & B (L101)”, ‘Site Layout and Building C (L102)” , “Grading Plan – Buildings A & B (L201)”, “Grading Plan – Buildings C (L202)” and “Planting Plan (301)”, all dated 8-19-19 and all prepared by Stream Collaborative and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, agrees that the applicant reduced the apparent height and massing of the building, particularly ‘Building A’ as it abuts the residential property to the north by doing the following: • The previously proposed cultured stone base of the buildings was replaced with brick which was wrapped around the north faced of Building A • The previously proposed cornice was redesigned and located at the top of the 3rd story • The materials and color of the exterior finishes on the top story has been changed • A thinner wall profile was used on the top story of Building allowing for a slight recess WHEREAS: the Planning Board has determined that the applicant has satisfied the following conditions imposed above Before Final Site Plan Approval: i. Submission to the Planning Board of colored and keyed building elevations for all facades, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of documentation of the hours of operation of the exterior amenity spaces. The applicant has submitted a letter dated 8-5-19 stating quiet hours that will be in the lease as well as hours of the rooftop patio, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details including building materials and colors, signage, lighting, exterior furnishings, paving, wall and railing materials and details, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 15 iv. Applicant to consider additional exterior bike racks. The applicant has submitted drawings showing additional bike racks in front of Buildings A & C, and v. Submission to the Board of the layout of covered bike parking. The applicant has submitted a drawing showing the layout, and vi. Acceptance of the SWPPP by the City Stormwater Management Officer, now therefore be it RESOLVED: the Planning Board does herby grant final site plan approval subject to the following new and unsatisfied conditions: Before issuance of a Building Permit i. Submission to the Planning Board of a monitoring plan by a qualified professional detailing steps that will be taken to protect the structural integrity for the cell tower an any proximate off-site structures, as needed, during foundation construction, and ii. Noise producing construction activities will be limited to the hours between 7:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday (or Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. with advance notification to and approval by the Director of Planning and Development). iii. Confirmation from the City Transportation Engineer that all concerns have been addressed, and iv. Documentation of a binding commitment for winter sidewalk snow removal, and v. Documentation from Ithaca Fire Department and DOT that all transportation and emergency access issues have been satisfied, and Before Certificate of Occupancy vi. Any future changes should be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, and vii. Bike racks must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and viii. Signage in parking lot pertaining to cell tower fall zone must be installed before a certificate of occupancy is granted, and ix. Execution of a easement agreement between the City and the property owner for portions of the sidewalk on private property, and x. Submission to the Planning Board of the tenant lease including language regarding the fall zone of the cell tower, and xi. 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., and Moved by: Jones Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Jones left the meeting at 7:59 p.m. after the adoption of the Final approval. C. Student Apartments, 238 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development. Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The .884-acre project site contains two recently-completed apartment buildings. Site development requires Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 16 the removal of existing landscaped areas and the removal, relocation, or upgrading of water and sewer lines within Summit Avenue. Site improvements will include retaining walls, landscaping, walkways, and exterior bike racks. Parking for bikes will be provided inside the buildings. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations. The project requires area variances. This has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Noah Demarest and Brandon Ebel of Stream Collaborative and Todd Fox of Visum Development appeared in front of the Board to present the proposed apartment building project and show materials samples to the Board. Public Hearing On a motion by Glass, seconded by Blalock, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. Ray Schlather appeared on behalf of ENP Associates to speak in opposition to the project. His firm has a lawsuit pending related to use and ownership of Summit Avenue claiming that the applicant does not have site control. He submitted written comments which are included in an addendum to these minutes. James Orcutt Jr. of 324 Dryden Road pointed out a discrepancy in the project description, noting that in one document the lot size is .77 acres and in another, it is .884 acres. He asked the applicants to clarify. He also remarked on a number of inconsistencies and items he felt needed clarification. He asked if the Board’s recommendation to the BZA sets a precedent, so if other property owners on Dryden wanted to seek a variance to allow 10 percent more lot coverage, would they also get a positive recommendation from the Planning Board? Dr. James Orcutt Sr. of 324 Dryden Road said he’s lived in Ithaca for 74 years and has seen a lot of changes, some good, some bad. He said there’s very little greenspace left in Collegetown anymore, and in looking at the request for a zoning variance, it is a need predicated on greed. He said the need for greenspace is great, and demand for parking is high, and at some point, enough is enough. He asked the Board to recommend denying the BZA variance and suggested the applicants should limit the project to what’s allowable under zoning. Chi-Kay Cheung, landlord of 109 Summit Avenue, said he has not given Visum or their group any permission to use his land for their projects. He said they do not control the proposed building site. He said that their proposal to contain stormwater in a sandtrap, but he said his building is more than 100 years old with a stone foundation, and if they put a lot of water in there and raise the water table, it could flood his basement. He also said the water, sewer, and gas lines for his building goes through the site. He said that the only staging area on their plans is on their half of Summit Avenue, but it was his experience that when they were working on the other two Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 17 buildings, they routinely blocked the entire Summit Avenue with parked vehicles and supplies. He repeatedly had to ask them to move so he could access his property. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston. Chair Lewis reminded the audience that the issue of site control would be determined in a court, and not by the Planning Board. He then invited the applicants to respond to the other issues raised in public comments. Fox said that as far as stormwater is concerned, it seems to be mostly sand up there, so infiltration should not be a problem. He said it’s definitely something they will have the engineers look into. He said he knows staging is going to be an issue, and they will be working closely with the contractor on that. Demarest said that with respect to the lot size discrepancy, he thinks it may have been a clerical error, and he will make sure they correct. Nicholas said it was incorrect in the resolution, but correct elsewhere. She said they would correct it. Glass asked about the water, sewer, and gas lines running under the site. Ebel said the Frank Santelli of T.G. Miller reached out to City Engineering regarding the utility issues. The City water and sewer will be relocated, and the gas easement runs alongside. He said that the City engineers thought the utilities could all be relocated with minimal disruption. Johnston asked if there was any consternation from the neighbors with being unable to get in or out during the last round of construction. Fox said he never had any problems. The construction fence was up exactly where it was supposed to be. He said that towards the end of the project they might have had some issues with trucks waiting to get in or out, and it might have been somewhat chaotic for the final few weeks of construction, but not over the entire timeframe of the project, and he said he can’t recall having any conversations with the neighbors about problems. Elliott asked what the staging plan is. Fox said they will have to stage off-site. Johnston asked if that would significantly increase traffic during construction. Applicants pointed out that this building is 1/8 the size of the previous project. Chair Lewis said staging is mentioned in the construction impacts section of Part 3 of the FEAF. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 18 Deputy Director Nicholas said that the staging will be reviewed by the fire department and will require a street permit if they want to use any city property. Director Cornish said that they typically require a staging plan be submitted prior to SEQR. Deputy Director Nicholas said they had submitted one showing staging in Summit Avenue, but it seems that may change, Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Glass: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for apartments located at 232-236 Dryden Road by Todd Fox for Visum Development Group, applicant and owner, and WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to construct a four-story building with eight apartments and associated site improvements. The .777-acre project site contains two recently-completed apartment buildings. Site development requires the removal of existing landscaped areas and the removal, relocation, or upgrading of water and sewer lines within Summit Avenue. Site improvements will include retaining walls, landscaping, walkways, and exterior bike racks. Parking for bikes will be provided inside the buildings. The project site is in the CR-4 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. As no parking is proposed for the project, the applicant will submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for approval by the Planning Board in accordance with district regulations. The project requires area variances, and WHEREAS: this has been determined to be an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on July 24 2019, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on September 24, 2019, 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: “232-238 Dryden Road, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 11-27-18 and “Existing Site Conditions (C101)”, “Utility Demolition Plan (C102)”, “Site Utility Plan (C103)”, “Site Utility Plan Profiles (C103)”, “Foundation Drains Plan (C105)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C106)”, and “Details (C201 & C202)” dated 6-14-19 and prepared by TG Miller PC; and “Site Layout Plan (L101)”, “Planting Plan (L104)”, Site Elevations (L201)”, “Pavement Details (L501)” , “Site Details (L502)” and “Construction Plan (G100)” dated 6-10-19, and “Floor Plans (A101, 102 & 103)”, “Elevation (south) (A201)”, Elevations (north) (A202)”, “Elevation (east) (A203)”, Elevations (west) (A204)”, dated 8-16-19 and a sheet showing exterior materials dated 8-21-19 and ‘Demo Plan (D100)” dated 9-3-19 all prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other application materials, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 19 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, 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: Johnston Seconded by: Glass In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None D. Immaculate Conception Redevelopment Project (Mixed Use Housing), 320 W Buffalo Street by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services. Determination of Environmental Significance. The project involves the renovation/conversion of the existing two-story former school building into a mixed-use building, a new four-story apartment building, (2) three unit townhome buildings, (1) four-unit townhome building, the renovation/conversion of a single-family home into a two-family home, and the renovation of the “Catholic Charities” Building. The overall project will contain 79 dwelling units with 130 bedrooms. Total increase in square footage on the site will be 49,389 SF, from 62,358 to 111,747. 9,274 SF of new and existing space in the former school will be commercial use. Site development will require demolition of one wing of the existing school building and one single-family home. The project also includes greenspace areas, 48 surface parking spaces and other site amenities. The property is located in the R-2b zoning district; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (B)(6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). Noah Demarest and Brandon Ebel of Stream Collaborative and Lynn Truame of INHS appeared to present project updates. The Board next reviewed the FEAF Part 3. Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Glass, seconded by Elliott: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for located at 320 W Buffalo Street by Lynn Truame for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, applicant and owner, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 20 WHEREAS: the project involves the renovation/conversion of the existing two-story former school building into a mixed-use building, a new four-story apartment building, (2) three-unit townhome buildings, (1) four-unit townhome building, the renovation/conversion of a single-family home into a two-family home, and the renovation of the “Catholic Charities” Building. The overall project will contain 79 dwelling units with 130 bedrooms. Total increase in square footage on the site will be 44,305 SF (from 62,358 to 106,663 SF). 3,773 SF of new and existing space in the former school will be commercial use and 2,055 SF will be rented to the Greater Ithaca Activities Center (GIAC). Site development will require demolition of one wing of the existing school building and one single-family home. The project also includes greenspace areas, 48 surface parking spaces and other site amenities. The property is located in the R-2b zoning district; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and WHEREAS: This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(k), (n), (B)(6), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11)., and WHEREAS: Common Council, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health all potentially involved agencies in this action, have all consented to the Planning Board acting as 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 funding or carrying out the action, did on June 25 2019, declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on September 24, 2019, reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled: “Boundary and Topographic Map Immaculate Conception Church, No 320-330 West Buffalo Street, No. 309 North Plain Street, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 3-28-2019; “Existing Site Conditions Plan (C101)” ”Construction Plan (G100)”, “Site Details- Paving (L501)” and “Site Details - Fixtures ((L502)” dated 5-24-19; and “Demolition Plan (C102)”, “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C103)”, “Utility Plan (C104)”, ‘Grading and Drainage Plan (C105)” dated 7-8-19 and all prepared by TG Miller PC; “Site Plan (L001)’, “Layout Plan (L101)”, “Planting Plan (L103)” , “Elevations (A201)” –showing the mixed use building, and “Perspective Views (902)” all dated 7-8-19; Drawings pertaining to Townhomes 2-2-2-3: “Floor Plans (A100, A101 & A102)”, “Elevations (A201 & A202)”, “Perspectives (A203)” and ‘Sections (A301)”; Drawings pertaining to Townhomes 2-2-3: “Floor Plans (A100, A101 & A102)”, “Elevations (A201 & A202)”, “Perspectives (A203)” and ‘Sections (A301)”: Drawings pertaining to Townhomes 2-3-3: “Floor Plans (A100, A101 & A102)”, “Elevations (A201 & A202)”, “Perspectives (A203)” and ‘Sections (A301)” all dated 8-15-19 and ‘prepared by Stream Collaborative, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, 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: Glass Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 21 Seconded by: Elliott In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None E. Carpenter Circle Project, Carpenter Park Road by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC. Public Hearing. The project seeks to develop the existing 8.7- acre vacant parcel located adjacent to Route 13 and off of Third Street. The proposal includes a 64,000 SF medical office; two mixed-use buildings, which will include ground-level retail/restaurant/commercial uses of 23,810 SF, interior parking, 166 market-rate apartment units, and 4,652 SF of amenity space; and a residential building offering +/-42 residential units for residents earning 50-60% AMI. Site amenities will include public spaces for residents and visitors, bike parking, transit access for TCAT, open green space, a playground, and access to the Ithaca Community Gardens. The project includes 349 surface parking spaces and an internal road network with sidewalks and street trees. The project sponsor is seeking a Break in Access from NYS DOT to install an access road off of Route 13. The property is located in the Market District; however, the applicant has applied to Common Council for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The project will require subdivision to separate each program element. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11). Applicants Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty LLC and Yamila Fournier of Whitham Planning & Design appeared in front of the Board to provide a brief presentation on the proposed project. Public Hearing On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing. Sheryl Swink with the Community Gardens said that she has attended numerous meetings related to this proposal and heard criticism of the plan for the affordable housing component (both its location and its isolation). She said she understands those concerns, but having spent a lot of time on the site, she said she thinks it’s a good location because there’s a good chance that a lot of families with children may live there, and being set back from the highway will make it quieter and safer. She said the highway is the noisiest feature of the site, noting that though the train may pass by closer to the affordable housing site, it only happens a couple of times a day. She said the other nice feature is that its proximity to the community garden means that families who live there can access the gardens without crossing a street. Marty Hiller with the Community Gardens said that when she first joined the gardens three years ago, they were in the middle of the Maguire (auto dealership) negotiations, and while they Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 22 came to a pretty good agreement, she was part of a group within the garden organization that rejected the agreement because they didn’t think it was an appropriate spot for a paved lot to be used as a car dealership. She said they were torn between what was best for the garden and what was best for the neighborhood. She said that if you went through the list of everything they wanted to see on the site (as opposed to a car dealership), this project is just about perfect. She said that maybe some of the buildings are a little taller than they might want, but overall, it is much better than what they were looking at previously. She said she is really pleased to see this happening instead of that. There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Petrina. Fournier thanked the garden members for their comments, and said it’s been great working with them to secure a permanent home for the gardens that will help this new neighborhood really feel like a neighborhood. F. City Harbor, 101 Pier Road by Jessica Edger-Hillman. The 11.09-acre project site consists of 8.33 acres of privately-owned land and 2.76 acres of adjacent City-owned parkland and road. The applicant proposes to redevelop the 8.33-acre project site and make improvements to 2.76 acres of adjacent City land. The project site consists of (3) privately-owned tax parcels. The building program will be a total of 316,280 SF consisting of (1) 60,000 SF medical office building, (2) five-story residential structures with a total of 172,980 GSF and 111 housing units, (1) five-story mixed use building with 77,800 GFA with 45 housing units, 15,743 SF of ground floor commercial (expected to be a restaurant), and (1) 5,500 SF Community Building to support golf, boating and other recreational activities associated with the adjacent City-owned Newman Golf Course. Improvements on City property in Phase 1 of the plan include the rebuilding of Pier Road to include sidewalks, street trees, a fire engine turnaround, and additional and reorganized parking. After Phase I, the applicant proposes to realign the end of Pier Road, extend it to a new clubhouse and add parking. Site improvements on private property to include a 1,570-foot publically-accessible promenade along Cascadilla Creek, including construction of a new seawall and replacement of existing docks, waterfront parks, a paddle park, internal circulation streets, bus stops, surface parking for 400 cars, and landscaping. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (h)(2), (i), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(6)(iii) and (v). David Herrick of T.G. Miller, Kate Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design, Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects, and Dave Kruse of SRF Associates appeared in front of the Board to give a project presentation and answer questions. Also on hand were developers Linc Morse and Elizabeth Ambrose. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 23 The primary focus of the project was on parking/ TDMP, particularly reducing the number of parking spaces needed on the site. Applicants said they would be incentivizing use of the TCAT system and were also exploring ways to partner with CarShare. G. Mixed Use Student Apartments, 411-415 College Avenue by Whitham Planning & Design for Student Agencies. Declaration of Lead Agency. The applicant proposes to construct a six-story building with a 7,038 SF footprint, ground floor retail, and 56 student apartments on floors two through six. The project includes a partially covered outdoor plaza area on land partially owned by Cornell. Project development will require the removal of the existing four-story building known as the Chacona Block, as well as the existing outdoor patio and retaining walls. The parcel is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(h)(4), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(9). Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Glass: WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a new mixed use apartment building located at 411-415 College Ave by Whitham Planning & Design for Student Agencies, owner, and WHEREAS: The applicant proposes to construct a six-story building with a 7,038 SF footprint, ground floor retail, and 56 student apartments on floors two through six. The project includes a partially covered outdoor plaza area on land partially owned by Cornell. Project development will require the removal of the existing four-story building known as the Chacona Block, as well as the existing outdoor patio and retaining walls. The parcel is in the MU-2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) and requires Design Review, and WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(h)(4), (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(9), and WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Department of Health, a potentially involved agency in this action has consented to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore be it Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 24 RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution, declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Petrina Seconded by: Glass In favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina Against: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vacancies: None Scott Whitham and Kate Chesebrough of Whitham Planning and Design, Steve Hugo of HOLT Architects and Kyle Karnes, CEO of Student Agencies appeared in front of the Board to give a project presentation. Elliott suggested they consider using a bird protection glass (Ornilux) to reduce bird strikes on the glass façade. He said that they might increase the step-back a little. Petrina said she likes it, and she agreed that the step-back is important. Johnston asked if they had met with their neighbors recently. Applicants said they were planning on doing so within the next week. Director Cornish asked what’s the dimension of the step-back? Applicants said 5 feet. Elliott said he thinks it needs to be larger. Director Cornish agreed. Hugo said he would come back with some renderings showing options. Glass asked about the interface between the building and the courtyard. Whitham said there would garage doors and the paving would extend from within to the courtyard. Chair Lewis said he is not sure that continuing the materiality of the next door neighbor accomplishes what they want to in terms of the integrity of the Chacona Block. He said the reason that it is held up as an icon of urbanism is the granularity. He said that when they extend the façade to twice as long as the other buildings on the block, it seems like you lose some of that. He said he definitely thinks it will feel monumental to a pedestrian in that space. He suggested they consider giving the building its own materials palette. Hugo said they studied it both ways. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 25 Elliott agreed. He said you also see a gap between most of the buildings along the block. Applicants said they want to connect to the neighboring building. Director Cornish agreed that you lose something with the one long façade. He then asked members’ opinions. Blalock said he thinks it is a good start and urged them to reach out to their neighbors. Johnston expressed support. Elliott said that when James Stirling designed the Schwartz Performing Arts Center, he imagined a piazza. He was trying to extend beyond the street, but it never really happened. Cornell has redeveloped it a little. He urged them to reconsider the island on Oak Avenue, and maybe refer to some of his early sketches. Glass said he agreed recognition of the gap is a good move, and more articulation at the top, which he said is currently generic and blocky. He also asked them to submit new renderings of the plaza showing it more accurately (currently looks mirrored and too dark). Petrina said that despite some reservations on the articulation, she is excited by it. 5. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals • # 3136 – 238 Dryden Road, Area Variance The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. This is appropriate and attractive infill housing that is consistent with the Collegetown Area Form Districts and the Collegetown Design Guidelines. The rear yard setback does not have an impact because the rear yard of the building backs up to Summit Ave • # 3138 – 105 Valentine Place, Area Variance The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. It adds housing density in an appropriate location. • # 3139 – 770 Cascadilla St (Greenstar), Sign Variance The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The Planning Board specifically asked the applicant to add visual interest the north façade of the building due to its high visibility. The Boar d also has no problem with the proposed monument sign. The Board supports food retail in this location due to the expected increase in residential use in the waterfront. • # 3140 – 111-115 The Knoll, Sign Variance The Planning Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s need for wayfinding. However, it finds that the one of the two signs is not for wayfinding and therefore should be removed. Approved by the Planning and Development Board November 26, 2019 26 6. Old/New Business Deputy Director Nicholas reminded the Board that they need to complete sexual harassment training by the end of the month. They discussed possibility of doing a lunch and learn on green building practices. Deputy Director Nicholas agreed to send out a Doodlepoll. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report, but Chair Lewis thanked the Board. B. Board of Public Works Liaison Blalock said there is some concern about Carpenter Circle and City Harbor and impacts on Route 13 traffic. C. Director of Planning & Development No report. 8. Adjournment: On a motion by Blalock, seconded by Elliott, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. From the Desk of: Roger Dennis 1075 Taughannock Blvd Ithaca, NY 14850 September 23, 2019 Dear Sir or Madam: Re: 815 East Aurora Street Visum wants to cram a three-building, 153-bed student housing development and parking lot at 815 East Aurora Street. To the best of my knowledge, this is a site that by all accounts, including testimony before the Syracuse Board of Review on September 19, 2019, by Fire Chief Tom Parsons and Visum's Architect Noah Demarest, is a site that is too small, too steep and poses significant challenges for the developer. Therefore, this developer appears have been granted special privileges that compromise safety and could pose risk to human life. And frankly, this development on this site is dangerous for countless reasons, several of which I will outline for you here. Fall Zone Danger The City Code § 325-29.9(A)(1) states that, "no habitable structure or outdoor area where people congregate shall be within a fall zone of 120% of the height of the PWSF or its mount." Additionally, a "concept memo" dated December 30, 2015 from JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development, stated, "The tower is on a 2.5-acre parcel and has an estimated height of 170 feet. In accordance with the existing ordinance, this would require any development to be outside a radius of 340 feet from the base of the tower. The request is to reduce the fall zone to 120% of the height of the tower. That is the distance the cell tower will actually fall based on two engineering reports submitted to the City, which state that in the worst situation, if all three guy wires supporting the tower fail, the tower's fall will be equal to the tower's height, or 170 feet, and that a debris field may extend beyond the collapsed tower an additional 10 -15 feet." There are engineering reports that are cited to support this claim. However and more importantly, it is undisputed that the parking lot for this project is still located within the fall zone of the cell tower. Any finding by City zoning staff that a parking lot is not a "congregation" area is entirely arbitrary, especially given the fact that the project is proposed as student housing. College students regularly congregate and assemble in the parking lot of their residences. If your municipal processes are followed, we strongly believe the BZA should overturn any finding that the Project complies with City Code § 325-29.9. It has been suggested that The Children's Garden with high-tension wires overhead is in a fall zone, a gathering area, and is a transient area for visitors. The difference here is that during inclement weather, there is a choice that is made to visit the garden. On this site, one must go into the "fall zone" because people live there and frequent the parking lot/fall zone on a daily basis -it is the only way in or out of these apartments by vehicle or bicycle. One also must walk through the fall zone to take out garbage. There is also significant economic gain to be realized given the ability to put parking spaces in the fall zone. Need for A Setback Variance for Parking: Errant Use of the Landscaping Compliance Method Arbitrary and Fabricated Setback Calculations Visum is not being required to obtain a setback variance from the City Code's requirements for parking lots. This is particularly troublesome. It is undisputed that the project's parking lot does not comply with the City's setback requirement. As explanation for this, the City has indicated that the applicant is using the "Landscaping Compliance Method." All property owners using this method must place a sign on the site in a form prescribed by the Planning and Development Board. There has not been any such notification or signage. However, pursuant to City Code§ 325-20(F)(3)(b)(1), the Landscaping Compliance Method only allows the Planning and Development Board to "approve a parking area that covers more than 50% of any side or rear yard," and makes no mention of allowing a parking lot to deviate from the setback requirements. If proper protocols and the internal logic of the City Code were actually followed, the BZA should find that the Project requires a setback variance for the parking lot even under the Landscaping Compliance Method. Your board has undeniably misapplied its own code. Even using the Landscape Compliance Method, it's impossible to put 50-foot canopy trees within an area that is 10 feet from the southern and eastern property line. This doesn't even consider proper planting methods to ensure the long-term health of the tree that could require a portion of the tree to be placed on the adjoining property, which isn't allowable. Again, the site is too small. Additionally, the City Building Department utilized its own method to determine the rear yard setback. That determination was arbitrary and quite frankly, significantly erred in favor of Visum. The proper formula as detailed in the analysis prepared by John Snyder Architects is attached to this letter. It appears the Building Department calculated the necessary rear yard setback by reference to the parcel's "width at street line," as opposed to the "width of the lot itself." Using the correct calculation, the Project requires a rear yard setback of 48.06', which it does not satisfy. Watershed Issues A cursory review of the SWPPP by Fagan Engineers and Land Surveyors, PC, shows cursory compliance with the standard DEC checklist review, however a focus on the calculations raises the following questions/concerns: • It is important and critical to review the upstream drainage areas. o Is the adjacent (south) parking area tributary to the Site? o Where does Coddington Road drain? o If there is a larger upstream area, that may overwhelm the proposed detention systems? • The mitigation system seems compliant upon cursory review. However, the question is if the conveyance system is sized to collect and disperse up to the full 1 00-year storm? There may very well be multiple spots in the conveyance system that fail/overflow: o D-1 to D: 50-year storm (2.02'); 1 00-year storm (4.69') o D-2 to D-1: 25-year storm (0.04'-minimal); 50-year storm (2.72'); 1 00-year storm (6.92') o D-3 to D-2: 25-year storm (1.53'); 50-year storm (1.60'); 1 00-year storm (2.03') • What this means is that the drainage structures along S. Aurora are being overwhelmed. Also, the analysis is not correct in showing that the storms greater than 25-year storm are mitigated. The discharge pipes need to be enlarged and the analysis should be reworked so that there are no overflows above-grade. • Where does the emergency overflow go for the detention system? • There is a concern with the Bioretention Facility #1 overflow. The path has a 90 degree bend at the property corner. Calculations should be provided to demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity. • Bioretention Facility #1 only has 0.2' of freeboard before the emergency spillway is used during the 1 00-year storm. All of the issues impact the ecology in an environmentally sensitive area in and around the site and must be investigated before this site plan could be approved. Fire Safety Issues If you approve this site plan, you will significantly and negatively impact firefighting and life safety measures, specifically as this plan does not provide adequate ability to properly position fire apparatus (not just aerial apparatus) for both firefighting and/or rescue operations and the relief proposed does not compensate for the hazard it creates. Given our climate, this site plan does not account for effective snow removal and snow removal contingencies that will further impact the ability of fire safety apparatus to maneuver and position for effective firefighting and rescue as snow builds up in around parked cars and at points of ingress and egress. How much more dangerous is this unmitigated issue? Fire apparatus access roads are required. They provide access for fire apparatus to support fire protection systems and fire suppression operations as well as for rescue to occupants or firefighters during a fire event. Especially with respect to Building C, the site plan creates safety issue by way of no access by an aerial apparatus. Fire apparatus access roads are one of the most important features for fire safety designs for a facility, building or portions of a building which are NOT readily accessible from public roads, as is the case for this site. Last week, surprisingly, the Syracuse Board of Review, which coincidentally is Chaired by Chief Tom Parsons, approved a questionable variance to a section of the International Fire Code 2015 Appendix D, Section 0105.3 requested by Visum's architect. Chief Parsons recused himself from this meeting, but ended up providing testimony in favor of Visum at the culmination of public input. To the best of my recollection, Fire Chief Tom Parsons even stated in this meeting, "This development is a good development, but not for this site." Actually, Appendix D, contains more detailed elements for use with the basic access requirements found in Section 503 of the International Fire Code /2015 (IFC). Section 503 of the IFC, focuses on "Fire Apparatus Access Roads," and Section 503.1 identifies; "Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3." For this purpose, only Sections 503.1.1 and 503.1.2 are applicable. Section 503.1.1 states "Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45, 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility." Please realize that Visum's site plan does not include a single code compliant fire apparatus access road. And, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Demarest testified that the fire lane could not be made any larger than proposed. To the best of my recollection, Visum acknowledges and identifies the "proposed fire lane" would have limited access and weight restrictions for a ladder (aerial) truck to reach the buildings from the short side of the building. By this acknowledgement, the fire lane being proposed does not comply with the code requirements to be considered a fire apparatus access road. Furthermore, the applicant's acknowledgement focuses on aerial apparatus and does not address other fire apparatus which also would NOT BE ABLE to properly access Buildings A, B and C (which is not to be built to Type IIA standards) to effectively provide firefighting or rescue operations. This is undeniably dangerous. Admittedly, the applicant acknowledges the site is limited due to topography, making access to the long side of the buildings not practical or "economically feasible." This is new construction and these factors need to be addressed and resolved on paper in the site plan before it's allowed to be constructed. Visum has proposed upgrading the construction type of the building A and B to Type IIA, non-combustible, using ICF (Insulated Concrete Forms) construction for exterior walls and CFMF (Cold Form Metal Framing) for floor systems and interior bearing walls. While these are structural conditions, it is very important to point out that combustible fire loads or sources being introduced by furniture, clothing and other items typically found in a "dorm" style building, such as posters, drapes, lamps, cooking products, candles or smoking materials will still exist within these buildings. An NFPA 13 (National Fire Protection Association) standard 13 fire sprinkler system is being offered in both buildings, which is an upgrade from the required NFPA 13R (Residential-multiple family) for these buildings. We must remember that both NFPA 13 and NFPA 13R system require proper water pressure and volume to be effective and are subject to being negatively impacted by low water main pressure or other impairments. If a fire sprinkler system has an impairment on a weekend, how will the building occupants be protected from the threat of fire? Why point out weekends? Because, the leading cause of dorm fires is by cooking and weekends are the most frequent time for dorms fires -plain and simple. The applicant states, "Each building has two stairwells for egress purposes". Per IFC, Chapter 10, Means of Egress, Section 1006, two exits or exit accesses are required. Providing two stairwells does not provide an enhancement but rather meets the code requirement. Again, Visum states, "We upgraded one stairwell to access the roof on each of the buildings and are providing standpipe connections on the roof at two locations for each building". There is no indication for sprinklers being installed on the rooftop terrace. Per IFC, Section 504.3, stairway access to the roof is required where four or more stories above grade plane level exist. Therefore, this "upgrade" does not provide an enhancement, but is a code requirement and should not be a consideration of approval to the site plan and eliminate the need for a required fire apparatus access road. Again, it appears that at least one or more variance would be required in this instance and for these reasons. Furthermore, the application for this site plan identifies minimum building information with three occupancy categories; R-2, S-2, and U. In the "project description" it identifies amenities as having a "gym" (A-3 occupancy), and a "media room" (B occupancy); also, a roof-top terrace and lounge on the fourth floor of Building B (A occupancy). Per the IFC, Section 903.2.1.3 Group A- 3, "An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for fire areas containing Group A-3 occupancies and intervening floors of the building where one of the following conditions exists: (conditions 1 and 2 are not applicable) 3. The fire area is located on a floor other than the level of exit discharge serving such occupancy." Here's the bottom line: This project is fraught with safety issues and frankly is dangerous. I realize that there are at least four reasons to vote no on the project and to give you more time to identify and review the findings we have presented: 1. Fall Zone Danger 2. Setback Issues including misapplications of the Landscape Method o The trees that would be planted do not comply with the Landscape Compliance Method requirement o Lack of public notification signage on the site 3. Watershed Issues 4. Fire Safety Concerns From allowing congregation, assembly and buildings with a cell tower Fall Zone; improper application of municipal code on a number of fronts including errant use of the Landscape Method and improper calculations for setbacks, to extremely dangerous issues centered around fire safety which could impact student lives - this is simply the wrong development for this site. It might work out better in another location, but this site is certainly not conducive to providing a safe place for students to live. Approving this site plan, will only add to the unsafe and dangerous plan that is being proposed. I respectfully implore this board to reject Visum's site plan as proposed. Sincerely, Roger Dennis I want to thank the two members of this Board who in having expressed concerns over the site plan for 815 took a stand last month and voted NO for final site approval. Not only this project's massing but even more insidious, you expressed reservations about the cavalier nature of the developers themselves who have repeatedly neither taken the concerns of this board nor the concerns of the community seriously. Hubris. It marks this site plan. Their weak, flippant answers are meant to deflect critique and ignore substance. I hopG that the two ~\~) remaining board members will support their colleagues in votin~t"c: reject the site f\ . \ plan for 815 S Aurora tonight. The simple fact is that I can no more excavate a 40' deep trench along your property line (due to your rights of lateral and subjacent support in your land, being also property rights and also implied easements) than I can put up a 40' wall to block the sun or winds from your land. ~Hff~8~"8:~ I never intended to result in the extreme disparity between residential buildings, /1 , ~their size and their proximity as this one does.\ Y~s{tbe d~yel~per pro~ab~y co~;~}i ~/~~nfit.a.!l.iilt!Jgre":~4"'erWitJ~<>fWithoutyZor hr6;: varie~S'''~,'t~~;;,ing 'I , ./ h 'n r """'th•ma to good platming.-~is-that we wifrsoon leam what typ-.,1 0 W~t:~:~~CT: The developer reports a 2.848-acre development site. R3-b coverage for all structures, including parking, cannot exceed 40% of the ---------- lot area. The developer reports total impervious site coverage, considering existing facilities and proposed improvements, as 68,280 SF, which equates to a lot coverage in excess of 55.47.%;(as 40% equals 49,623.55 SF). It"\Atottld seetn t!Sb- m<>st interpretati<ln~~).5b~kt~an AREA VARIANCE. And this is not the .3Y."~ ·;.,.,,variance that has been derailed by the City Attorney, in essence taking away your own jurisdiction over the interpretation of zoning code and ~ )VvtvvM~ icrck ~ ~-~ vu--t'-1 o-0. leaving the public no forum for redress. Ad naseum t:Be ¥arial'lees this prejeGt was ~ .ganted a pass for: the l'@at yarE~ 8Gbbash, tB.e htndikape method ate ~ITO. A NO now also means that you will avert an even more disturbing manifestation of massing if the construction of this site plan were allowed to commence. The spectre of drilling, hammering, hoeing into the bedrock shale of this steep hill deep enough to secure the proposed 40' above-ground structures we are promised will reverberate for over four months in the process of removing over 3000 cubic feet of rock. Did you know that pile drivers produce over 100db in sound and that the threshold of pain is 130db; a plane engine within 100'. This As proposed, the 238 Dryden Road project will unreasonably impede --if not totally extinguish --the existing rights of the public, including the long-time pedestrian public, the neighboring landowners --some of whom have deeded easements --and the City, in the southern bed of Summit Avenue as a thoroughfare to Dryden Road. Deeds from the late 1800's conveyed the land along Summit Street subject to a 50-foot-wide strip of land to be used as a highway "extending north from [the] Dryden Road," i.e., through the southern corridor of Summit Avenue all the way to Oak Avenue (see e.g. Exhibit B). Notably, Visum's claim to the Summit Avenue corridor part of the property is by quitclaim deed only. As the BZA knows, a quitclaim deed transfers only a possessory title, transferring the interest of the grantor in the property only to the extent that any such interest exists. Nothing is conveyed by a quitclaim deed if the grantor has no title to, nor interest in the property conveyed. Thus, Visum's claim to the area for which it is requesting variances is precarious at best. Even Visum's attorney concedes that the "exact scope of what could be built in those areas ["Area A" and ''Area B" as shown in the 238 Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit C], is (and probably will remain) unclear, as those areas are subject to easements benefitting the owners of the parcels abutting Summit Avenue" (see 1/17/2019 email from Seth Hiland, Esq, to Brandon Ebel at STREAM Collaborative, attached hereto as part of Exhibit D). Moreover, in an early design of this project, STREAM Collaborative identified a concern about a 10-foot "easement," which extends through the corridor of Summit Avenue southerly to Dryden Road (see highlighted preliminary design, dated September 19, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit E). As referenced above, pedestrians historically have had unobstructed access along that pathway from Oak Avenue to Dryden Road (see Exhibit B), a fact acknowledged by 232's architect, Noah Demarest, in recent deposition testimony in this case. Significant additional problems exist in the project, including, among other things, that: (1) By revised site plan submitted to this Board by the same architect in June 2018, the developer represented to this Board that this very same site (south end of Summit Avenue) would be a "pocket park," an area of green space with trees (see Exhibit F [drawing excerpted from 238 Dryden Road's "paper file"]); no mention was made of any other development of this site, even though it now appears from sworn testimony and an early survey submitted during the 232-236 Site Plan Review that the developer already had been planning the 238 Project building (see Exhibit G); 2 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D A 7t EXHIBIT /S""t: - Noah Demarest <noah@streamcolab.com> STREAM COLLABORATIVE Deponent Dat;/.';:1 5-/-r fl.-.p-tt.-il!.-_- www.o£POaaox.coM 238 Site Question Brandon Ebel <brandon@streamcolab.com> Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:55PM To: "Seth T. Hiland" <SHiland@harrisbeach.com> Cc: Todd Fox <todd@visumdevelopment.com>, Chris Petrillose <chris@visumdevelopment.com>, Darrin Brock <db@tgmillerpc.com>, Robert Morache <rob@streamcolab.com>, Noah Demarest <noah@streamcolab.com>, laura@visumdevelopment.com Seth, Thank you for the clarification. We were not aware of the outstanding settlement or that the southern portion of the site was in question for development. Unfortunately, this project has been presented to the city and is now part of the public record. BRANDON EBEL PROJECT MANAGER STREAM COLLABORATIVE architecture + landscape architecture dpc 1 08 W. State St., 2nd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 office: 607.216.8802 ext. 707 email: Brandon@streamcolab.com www. streamcolab. com ., · ,; r£-l Virus-free. www.avast.com On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:49 AM Seth T. Hiland <SHiland@harrisbeach.com> wrote: Brandon, Visum has the right to develop that portion of the property between the opened portion of Summit Avenue (below Area "B") and Dryden Road, what I will call the "Southern Portion" for purposes of this email. Some improvements might be able to be constructed in Area A or Area B in the future, but the exact scope of what could be built in those areas is (and probably will remain) unclear, as those areas are subject to easements benefiting the owners of the parcels abutting Summit Avenue. In the litigated matter, the court has only concluded that ENP Associates has no easement or other private rights with respect to the Southern Portion. ENP's and the other neighbors' easements with respect to Areas A and 8 remain undisturbed. Moreover, the court has not yet decided whether all of Summit avenue, including the Southern Portion, or a portion of Summit Avenue are public streets, which would kill off any rights to develop the Southern Portion unless and until the City agreed to convey the Southern Portion back to Visum. 1 think it should be assumed that, while Area A and Area 8 are currently owned by Visum and so therefore help with lot coverage calculations, they are not going to be available for development without the consent of each of the neighbors, which Visum would be very unlikely to get at this point in time. We are in the process of attempting to settle the pending litigation to clear up rights to develop the Southern Portion. For this reason, it is imgerative that no hint that Visum is considering development the Southern Portion become a matter of public record. If ENP Associates were to learn of the fact that Visum is planning on developing the Southern Portion, the costs of settlement would skyrocket. Seth Seth T. Hiland Partner HARRIS BEACH PLLC ATTORNEYS AT lAW ·119 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 607.330.7721 Direct 607.273.6802 Fax 607 .. 273.6444 Main Website 1 Bio 1 Add to Contacts practiceGREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emalls. From: Brandon Ebel <brandon@streamcolab.com> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 10:36 AM To: Todd Fox <todd@visumdevelopment.com>; Chris Petrillose <chris@visumdevelopment.com>; Darrin Brock <db@tgmillerpc.com>; Robert Morache <rob@streamcolab.com>; Noah Demarest , <noah@streamcolab.com>; Seth T. Hiland <SHiland@HarrisBeach.com> ! Subject: 238 Site Question Hi Everybody, Yesterday we had a pre-app meeting with the city on the newly proposed 238 building. Gino brought up a question regarding one of our setbacks. (See attached updated survey from TG Miller along with our proposed). Rob has laid out the building based on using the property line that runs along the center line of Summit Ave. We were under the impression that based on the court declaration that Visum held the rights to make improvements within the areas listed as AREA 'A' and '8' so long as they maintained the required access easement for the neighboring properties therefore giving us the opportunity to use the centerline property line to determine the setback from. That allows us to do the bump out on the North wall shown in red on our proposed site plan. Gino is looking for this confirmation in order to allow us to use the footprint as shown on our proposed site plan. If not we will need to maintain a. 20' setback for the entire North line of the building requiring us to remove the section in red. Seth, can you confirm that based on the decisions and order that at a minimum AREA '8' is entirely in the rights of Visum to use? Regards, BRANDON EBEL PROJECT MANAGER STREAM COLLABORATIVE architecture + landscape architecture dpc 108 W. State St., 2nd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 office: 607.216.8802 ext. 707 email: Brandon@streamcolab.com www. streamcolab. com Virus-free. www.avast.com ------··---------------------·---- Statement of Confidentiality This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system and advise the sender. EXHIBIT E le: 2J8 Dryden Rd https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 2 of4 Zoning Administrator City of Ithaca Zoning Division {607) 274-6513 From: Brandon Ebel [brandon@streamcolab.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:02 AM To: Gino Leonardi Cc: Todd Fox; Lisa Nicholas; Noah Demarest Subject: Re: 238 Dryden Rd Hi Gino, We will get working on a new submission. What is the reason that makes the April submission not applicable? Regards, BRANDON EBEL PROJECT MANAGER STREAM COLLABORATIVE architecture+ landscape architecture dpc 108 W. State St., 2nd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 office: 607.216.8802 ext. 707 email: Brandon@streamcolab.com www.streamcolab.com D Virus-free. www.avast.com On Mon, JullS, 2019 at 12:49 PM Gino Leonardi <GLeonardi@cityofithaca.org> wrote: Hi Brandon, You will have to submit a new application and information for a variance. The April application is not applicable. Thanks, Gino Leonardi Zoning Administrator City of Ithaca Zoning Division . {607) 274-6513 • From: Brandon Ebel [brandon@streamcolab.com] , Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 2:30 PM To: Gino Leonardi Cc: Todd Fox; Lisa Nicholas . Subject: Re: 238 Dryden Rd Gino, Thanks for clarifying that. The next question I have is regarding the BZA submission that was made on April 19th and whether or not that was sufficient-I believe that submission covered the anticipated variances if Area A and B were not incorporated in the site. Can you confirm that you have that information and whether or not it's sufficient as is or if you need new or amended info? 8/28/2019, 8:41 AM ~e: 238 Dryden Rd https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa!?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 3 of 4 , Regards, BRANDON EBEL PROJECT MANAGER STREAM COLLABORATIVE architecture + landscape architecture dpc 108 W. State St., 2nd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 office: 607.216.8802 ext. 707 email: Brandon@streamcolab.com www.streamcolab.com On Thu, Julll, 2019 at 11:54 AM Gino Leonardi <GLeonardi@cityofithaca.org> wrote: Hi Brandon, . It would be prudent to follow the two paths at this point. Although, I will have to discuss this with Lisa to see if there are any issues that would affect preliminary SPR approval for the project. The BZA application is due on 7/19/2019 for the September meeting and talk to Lisa when she gets back from vacation on Monday. If this is a good option, I will need the complete application by the due date. Thank you, Gino Leonardi Zoning Administrator City of Ithaca Zoning Division (607) 274-6513 . From: Brandon Ebel [brandon@streamcolab.com] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 10:34 AM To: Gino Leonardi Cc: Todd Fox; Lisa Nicholas Subject: 238 Dryden Rd Hi Gino, · As noted in my previous email we have two viable paths available to us in pursuing approval with 238. Is there a problem submitting based on 2 different paths? Todd prefers to stay on the path we are currently on due to time, given (as I mentioned) they expect a determination on the legal dispute by the end of the month which would allow you at that point to continue your review based on what we submitted with the adjusted lot line but with removing the parking so to eliminate any variances needed based on the side yard parking requirement. However, it is also recognized that based on what you said we could achieve approval with 3 minor variances (lot coverage [5% over], rear yard setback[lOft], and impervious coverage[25% over]) and we could submit an alternate plan that follows that path but that would be the fall back approach knowing that we wouldn't be on the BZA agenda until much later. Do have any issues with us pursuing it 2 concurrent approaches? I've CC'd Lisa as well in case this is something that she would need to weigh in on too. Regards, BRANDON EBEL PROJECT MANAGER STREAM COLLABORATIVE architecture + landscape architecture dpc 8/28/2019, 8:41AM • ' 1 lt:: 238 Dryden Rd ; 108 W. State St., 2nd Floor i Ithaca, NY 14850 · office: 607.216.8802 ext. 707 email: Brandon@streamcolab.com ' www.streamcolab.com D Virus-free. www.avast.com https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa!?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 4 of 4 8/28/2019, 8:41 AM W: f-3B Drjden Road -SPR Application https :I /mail.cityofithaca. org/ owa!?ae= I tem&t= IPM.N ote&id=RgAAA ... 1 of3 FW: 238 Dryden Road -SPR Application Gino Leonardi Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 1:30 PM To: Krin Flaherty Attachments:238 Dryden Rd. Lot Requir~Lxlsx (12 KB) Hi Krin1 I wasn't sure if you wanted me to keep you in the loop concerning the zoning review for the project at 238 Dryden Road. If so1 please let me know. Thank you1 Gino Leonardi Zoning Administrator City of Ithaca Zoning Division (607) 274-6513 From: Gino Leonardi Sent: Thursday/ June 271 2019 11:02 AM To: Lisa Nicholas; Todd Fox; Demarest1 Noah Subject: RE: 238 Dryden Road -SPR Application Hi Todd and Noah1 I have reviewed the 238 Dryden Road packet that you submitted to Lisa for Site Plan Review. I have listed below the items that I need more information in order to determine if the project is compliant with the requirements for the CR-4 zone district. The following information is needed: General Information -There are no yard dimensions for the builaing siting on the Site Layout Plan1 L1011 so I will need to a site plan detailing the setback dimensions for the building. -Please provide the average grade calculations for the building height and number of stories forthe record. Rooftop Mechanical enclosure 325-45.2: Utilities and Mechanical Equipment The mechanical equipment is required to be less than 1/3 of the building footprint and does not exceed nine feet in height above the roof. Note: The height of the screening/ as outline in the narrative/ is compliant at 6'. -Please provide the square footage of the rooftop mechanical enclosure/screening. Green Space 325-3 Definitions: A portion of a lot that is set aside for public or private use without any construction or parking areas. The space may be used for passive or active recreation, may be reserved to protect natural areas, or may serve as a buffer between adjacent lots or uses. The area may be naturally occurring or landscaped. Where a minimum green space requirement applies, at least 75% of the required area shall be softscape including trees, shrubs, natural plantings, garden areas, lawns, and other live vegetative coverings. The remaining area may include pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks or patios. Required green space must be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition at all times. -See the attached spreadsheet for the green space coverage calculations. The information I used for the existing green space was from the original site plan approval for 112 and 114 Summit Avenue. The information for the square footage for the new building at 238 Dryden Rd. was provided by Brandon and the site information was from the survey map dated 11/27/2018 revised on 5/30/2019 for the new proposed site plan and sheet L101 dated 6/10/2019. -Please provide a site plan indicating the square footage of the landscape and impervious surfaces for the entire site. Paved Area A & B The use of Area A and Area B1 if kept in its current condition1 would require a site plan showing the proposed use of 8/28/2®19, 8:43AM 'W: ]38 Dry£\en Road -SPR Application https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa!?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 2 of3 that portion of land to resolve the following issues: 325-20 1. Parking area Clear boundaries: per section 325-20 D (2)(b) 2. Parking area Screening: installed per section 325-20 F (2) 3. Maximum Parking Area Coverage: per section 325-20 F (3) (a) For the Setback Method; (b) For the Landscape Method; The landscape method would have to be approved by Planning. -Please note the following: 276-7C(1}_ Parking areas in residential zoning districts. In order to protect the character of residential areas, plans for parking areas with the capacity of three or more cars within residential zoning districts must conform to either the setback compliance method or, at the discretion of the Planning Board, the landscaping compliance method described respectively in§ 325-20E{5)(a) and {b). Such plans must also comply with all other general and specific standards of § 325-20. Where turnarounds, or other maneuvering spaces not required for access to parking spaces, are provided that meet minimum size for a parking space, thev shall be counted as a parking space for the purposes of this subsection. -Please provide a detailed plan for this area incorporating the side yard and rear yard setback lines. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Gino Leonardi Zoning Administrator City of Ithaca Zoning Division (607) 274-6513 From: Usa Nicholas Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 3:09 PM To: Todd Fox; Demarest, Noah Cc: Gino Leonardi Subject: 238 Dryden Road -SPR Application Todd & Noah, We have received your SPR application and fee for 238 Dryden Road. The project will be on the July 23, 2019 Planning Board agenda for declaration for lead agency. I have forwarded your application to Gino for a zoning review. I assume he will need a detailed zoning analysis. It appears that your will need several variances. In order to progress the project through environmental review -I'll need to know exactly what variance are needed and you will need to have a BZA date. Please keep me posted. I will schedule design review and the public hearing for August or Sept depending on the status. Usa Nicholas, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning Planning Division 108 E Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-274-6557 "Diversity: The art of thinking independently together." Malcolm Forbes (Business leader and publisher, 1919-1990) 8/28/2019, 8:43AM ~w:. 23$ Dryden Road-SPR Application https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 3 of3 8/28/2019, 8:43AM ~: 238 Dry~en Road Zoning Appeal Application https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa!?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 1 of 4 RE: 238 Dryden Road Zoning Appeal Application Sean M. McCabe [smccabe@HarrisBeach.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 7:32AM To: Gino Leonardi Cc: Krin Flaherty; Seth T. Hiland [SHiland@HarrisBeach.com]; Sean M. McCabe [smccabe@HarrisBeach.com] Attachments:232 Dryden Rd -Lux Ithaca~Lpdf (619 KB) Hi Gino: I'm following up on the referenced matter in response to your email below. As you requested, attached please find an updated survey showing our client's fee ownership of Areas A & B. Please confirm that these areas will now be available for purposes of lot area and setbacks. If you would like to discuss once you have had a chance to review the revised map, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Thank you again. Sean M. McCabe Attorney HARRIS BEACH PLLC ATIORNEYS AT LAW 99 Garnsey Rd. Pittsford, NY 14534 585.419.8571 Direct 585.419.8801 Fax 585.419.8800 fvlain Website I Bio I Add to Contacts practiceGREEN Save a tree. Read., don't print, emails. From: Gino Leonardi <Gleonardi@cityofithaca.org> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:07 PM To: Sean M. McCabe <smccabe@HarrisBeach.com> Cc: Krin Flaherty <KFiaherty@cityofithaca.org>; Seth T. Hiland <SHiland@HarrisBeach.com> Subject: RE: 238 Dryden Road Zoning Appeal Application Hi Sean, I am writing to you in response to the email you sent me on Friday the 26th concerning our conversation on Thursday morning. Please keep in mind that until I review the final version of this proposed development, my responses are limited to the possible application of the zoning ordinance and not a final determination of zoning compliance. Revisions, such as what is currently in discussion, may cause issues with other aspects of zoning compliance for the proposed project and the existing approved development. Also, I included in this response some code cites that may be applicable depending the final outcome of the project. Concerning the issue of ownership for Area A and B and your assertion that the owner has Fee Title, this ownership should be clarified in a survey. According to the survey dated 11/27/2018, revised on 12/28/2018, the survey includes the metes and bounds description contained in the warranty deed that describes the legal parcel at 232-236 Dryden Road. The metes and bounds description did not include the designated area of A and B. Furthermore, it gives no warranty of title that Area A and B can be consolidated into the existing parcel. In Note 1, it states that the actual fee title "may include lands up to the centerline of said street..." This caused me some concern that conveyance of area A and B, may be questionable. In addition, the surveyor specifically surveyed the deeded parcel and just outlined the areas in question, presumably by request of the owner. Therefore, in order to determine compliance, an updated survey would be required. The survey must show that the actual parcel line is the eastern most portion of Areas A and B. The zoning ordinance specifically required yards to be from the "property line" to the building (not a presumed line 8/28/2019, 8:46AM ~: 238 Dry~en Road Zoning Appeal Application https :/ /mail.cityofithaca.org/ owa!?ae== I tem&t==IPM.N ote&id== RgAAA ... ( .. 2 of 4 of ownership). With that said, if a new survey (as stated above) includes the land of area A and B, then the land of Area A and B can be used as part of the lot area and setbacks, provided it meets the applicable provision of the ordinance. Please keep in mind that 232-236 Dryden Road, known as 112 and 114 Summit Avenue, has been reviewed, approved, and the property has been established as such and any changes may cause issues in 232-36 Dryden's zoning compliance. For example, if the owner has to maintain the paved r-o-w area in Areas A and/or B, then the paved area (not previously part of the designated 232-36 Dryden Road parcel) may be considered a new element within the parcel. If the paved area can contain or be used as parking, (there are additional requirements for 3 or more vehicles see 276-7 C (1)) or meets the criteria for a parking area, the provisions of 325-20 may be required. Finally, as I stated in our conversation, the appeal based on the email to Brandon Ebel dated February 21, 2019 is not the factor that the appeal could not be processed for the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The issue is the procedure for both Site Plan Review and the BZA. Both require projects to have environmental review completed prior to appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Planning Board is the Lead Agency for SEQR and no application has been submitted for Site Plan Review. [See: 276-4 B (2), 325-40 8 (k) and 325-40 8 (2) (f)] Furthermore, the discussion we had concerning the email was that it was not a formal determinatioR. No formal request was made for a determination and no letter of determination was drafted on City letterhead. I also explained that the email addressed an "IF" question concerning the use of a portion of property outside of the deeded property lines. At this point, it may be prudent to have a meeting to discuss these issues and get all parties on the same page. Sincerely, Gino Leonardi Zoning Administrator City of Ithaca Zoning Division (607) 274-6513 From: Sean M. McCabe [smccabe@HarrisBeach.com] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 2:31PM To: Gino Leonardi Cc: Krin Flaherty; Seth T. Hiland; Sean M. McCabe Subject: RE: 238 Dryden Road Zoning Appeal Application Hi Gino: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation yesterday morning regarding the referenced appeal, I would like to confirm a few items with you. First, we discussed our collective apparent miscommunication with respect to the ownership of the parcels identified as Areas A & B shown on the attached survey and the related set-back and lot coverage issues. I can confirm that Lux Ithaca Holdings LLC, the applicant submitting this appeal, does hold fee title to Areas A & B. Accordingly, based on our conversation, I understand that both Areas A & B are available for purposes of rear yard setback and lot coverage requirements with respect to the proposed 238 Dryden development because Lux Ithaca is the fee owner, and that no variance is required for these criteria. Please confirm that my understanding is correct. Next, we discussed that your email to Brandon Ebel dated February 21, 2019 regarding the project does not constitute an appealable determination or interpretation under the Ithaca Code, and that, as a result, your office cannot accept the referenced appeal at this time. Please also confirm that my understanding regarding our client's appeal is correct. Thank you again for working with us through these issues. Please don't hesitate to call me to discuss any of the foregoing. 8/28/2019, 8:46AM ~: ,23 ~ Dryflen Road Zoning Appeal Application https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa!?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 3 of 4 Sean M. McCabe Attorney HARRIS BEACH PLLC ATIORNEYS AT lAW 99 Garnsey Rd. Pittsford, NY 14534 585.419.8571 Direct 585.419.8801 Fax 585.419.8800 Main Website 1 Bio 1 Add to Contacts practiceGREEN Save a, tree. Read, don't print, emails. From: Sean M. McCabe Sent: Friday, April19, 2019 1:59 PM To: Gino Leonardi <Gleonardi@cityofithaca.org> Cc: Todd Fox <todd@visumdevelopment.com>; Laura Mattos <laura@visumdevelopment.com>; Seth T. Hiland <SHiland@HarrisBeach.com>; Sean M. McCabe (smccabe@HarrisBeach.com) <smccabe@HarrisBeach.com> Subject: 238 Dryden Road Zoning Appeal Application Gino: Please see attached. Thank you. Citrix Attachments Expires October 16, 2019 2018025 -238 Dryden Rd SITE -SPR.pdf 238 Dryden Rd -letter to neighbors.pdf 500700 64.-2-18 112-14 Summit Ave-Lux l ... ngs.png 500700 64.-2-18 Avery5160Labels 200FtSear ... lts.pdf 500700 64.-2-18 GIS Map 200FtSearchResults.pdf BZA 238 Dryden Application_Signed&Notarized .pdf Letter to G. Leonardi reZoning appeal (4831. .. 1).pdf Lux Ithaca Zoning App Ex A (4850-9575-8228 2).pdf Lux Ithaca Zoning App Ex B (4816-4260-1108 1).pdf Lux Ithaca Zoning App Ex C (4826-1626-9460 1).pdf Lux Ithaca Zoning App Ex D (4838-5798-0052 1).pdf Memo to BZA re 238 Dryden (4814-3743-0932 6).pdf SEAF.pdf Download Attachments sean mccabe uses Citrix Files to share documents securely. 3MB 269.6 KB 78.7 KB 14.4 KB 152 KB 2.1 MB 113.1 KB 137.1 KB 3MB 478.1 KB 954.5 KB 172.3 KB 392.4 KB 8/28/2019, 8:46AM :.E: 238 Dryfien Road Zoning Appeal Application https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAA ... 4 of4 Sean M. McCabe Attorney HARRIS BEACH PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 99 Garnsey Rd. Pittsford, NY 14534 585.419.8571 Direct 585.419.8801 Fax 585.419.8800 Main Website 1 Bio I Add to Contacts practiceGREEN Save a tree. Read, don't print, emails. Statement of Confidentiality This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system and advise the sender. 8/28/2019, 8:46AM Re: 1/16/2019 Pre-Application Meeting https://mail.cityofithaca.orglowa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAC2V6A5EsohSrOKVw ... 1 of2 Re: 1/16/2019 Pre-Application Meeting Gino Leonardi Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 3:08 PM To: Robert Morache [rob@streamcolab.com] Attachments: Rear Yard Memorandum.pdf (696 KB) Hi Rob, I complied the list of questions that I presented for the proposals you submitted oil January 15th. I will need the following information to complete the zoning review for the projects. 815 S. Aurora Street: 1. The proposal included \.ftilizing the existing buildings associated with the cell tower. Please state the intended uses and revised the parking count accordingly. 2. There was a question concerning the basement, as defined by the zoning ordinance. In further review of the proposed plans, only 4 floors are indicated in the plans. It shows that the "basement" is designated as the first floor, therefore the total number of stories is 4 which is permitted in the R-3b zone district. 3. Please confirm that the weighted average was used to determine the average grade height. 4. Please provide the total square footage of the buildings including: overhangs over 2 feet, porches, bridges, and other structures that affect building area as defined by the zoning ordinance. 5. Rear Yard: I have completed the review of the permitted dimensions for the required Rear Yard, Column 14/15 on the District Regulations Chart. In 2010, the then Commissioner, Phyllis Radke proposed to amend Chapter 325 to correct inconsistencies pertaining to the Rear Yard Requirements. The proposal included amending the District regulations for the R-1, R-2, R-3 R-U, and C-SU to have rear yards be a minimum of 20 feet. The memorandum, written by Phyllis Radke, did express the 20 foot minimum, although it was meant to further regulate the rear yard requirement and eliminate the confusion caused by Section 325-18 C, reduction in rear yards. As a result, the Planning and Economic Development Committee moved to have Common Council approve the changes to the zoning ordinance. These revisions included adding the phrase "but not less than 20 feet" to the District Regulations Chart, Column 14/15. The additional statement was intended to clarify the confusion when using the percentage value compared to the footage value. For example, if the resulting percentage of a lot was less than 20 feet, than the required rear yard must be 20 feet. The zoning ordinance Section 325-8 A (14) requires rear yards to have a rear yard of at least the depth which Is the percentage figure listed in this column. Such percentage shall be taken of the lot depth. I have attached the memorandum for your review. In conclusion, the project at 815 S. Aurora Street will require a rear yard variance if a 20 foot rear yard is proposed. 413-415 W. Seneca Street: 1. The proposed 10 foot rear yard does not comply with the requirements of the B-2d zone. The rear yard must be 15% or 13.05 feet. 2. I am still waiting for Jennifer Kusznir to give me the zone line setback dimension. 3. The building height at 38' complies. 238 Dryden Road: 1. I need a scalable layout, preferably imposed on a current survey, containing the three buildings and showing the green space. The square footage (building area) of each building and square footage of the proposed green space. 2. Please provide verification that the parcel, directly to the north, is now part of parcel # 64.-2-18. Please let me know if you have any questions, Gino Leonardi Zoning Administrator 1123/2019, 3:11 PM Re: 1/16/2019 Pre-Application Meeting 2of2 City of Ithaca Zoning Division {607) 274-6513 https://mail.cityofithaca.org/owa!?ae=Item&t=lPM.Note&id=RgAAAAC2V6A5EsohSrOKVw ... 1/23/2019,3:11 PM · EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT .DESCRIPTION STORMW ATER DRAINAGE CONTROLS MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL REGULATIONS CERTIFICATION FORMS CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CALCULATIONS WATER QUALITY VOLUME AND SAND FILTER SIZING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SITE SURVEY MAP SITE CIVIL LEGEND & NOTES EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS UTILITY DEMOLITION PLAN SITE UTILITY PLAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN DETAILS DETAILS 1 1 2 4 5 FORM 1 lOFl C100 C101 C102 C103 Cl06 C201 C202 238 Dryden Road Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will construct a third building on the property in addition to the recently completed buildings addressed as 232 and 236 Dryden Road. The property, previously Tax Map Parcels 64.-2- 17 and 64.-2-18, have been consolidated into one parcel, Tax Map Parcel 64.-2-18. The new building will include 4 floors of apartment space plus a basement with common living space. Paving on the site will include a rear patio on the north side of the building, stairs and entrance landing on the east side, and entrance plaza on the south side connecting to the existing sidewalk on Dryden Road. The project will disturbance approximately 11,000 s.f. and will require the preparation of a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with Chapter 282 ofthe City oflthaca Code. Since disturbance is less than l acre, a SPDES Pennit under the NYSDEC General Permit (GP-0-15-002) is not required. The stormwater management objectives presented in this Basic SWPPP focus primarily on controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction and stabilization of the site. All areas of the site have been previously disturbed and the on-site soils are best described as man- made. Except for portions of the sanitary sewer improvements, which will not impact soil cover on the site, stonnwater runoff from the site drains to the City of Ithaca storm sewer collection system at Dryden Road. The outfall from the collection system is to Six Mile Creek to the south. There is no evidence of any wetlands located on or adjacent to the site. The site is not located in or adjacent to any mapped floodplain. STORMW ATER DRAINAGE Existing Conditions The lands on the propetiy slope down generally to the north and south statiing along a ridge running east-west through the mid-point of the building at 236 Dryden Road. Stormwater runoff to the nmih flows overland and is collected by the City storm system on Oak Avenue. To the south, runoff from a relatively smaller portion of the propetiy flows overland to the City storm system on Dryden Road. A larger pmiion of the property, generally along the privately owner Summit A venue conidor, drains to a bioretention filter practice at the south end of the avenue which is sewered to the City system on Dryden Road. Roof runoff from the 2 existing buildings is sewered directly to the Dryden Road system. The existing site conditions and drainage facilities are shown on Sheet C 1 01 of the attached drawings. Proposed Conditions The project will disturb approximately 10,600 s.f. and result in a net increase of approximately 2,500 s.f. of impervious soil cover and conesponding decrease in landscaped area draining to the south. The net change is an increase in impervious cover of approximately A new storm service will pipe rw1off from the roof to the existing on-site storm sewer connected to the Dryden Road storm system. Runoff from the relatively minor landing and stairway east of the building will drain to an area drain with piped outfall at the street line. Runoff from the plaza area south of the building will drain overland to the street. The existing bioretention t1lter practice is located within the footprint of the new building and therefore will need to be relocated or replaced. Inlets to be installed nmih of the building will collect rW1off fiom the areas notih of the building including the proposed patio and the existing areas along the Summit Avenue corridor currently draining to the existing bioretention filter. Runoff to inlets T.G. Miller, P.C. 1. June 14,2019 23 8 Dryden Road Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be treated by a new buried sand filter practice to replace the existing filter practice as discussed below. The previous project resulted in a net decrease in site impervious cover of 4,400 s.f., from 31,800 s.f. to 27,400 s.f. The result fi·om both this project and the previous one is a net decrease of approximately 1,900 s.f. The proposed site conditions and proposed drainage improvements are shown on Sheet C 1 03 of the attached drawings. The project will involve eatihwork in excess of 250 cubic yards which is the only threshold that triggers a Basic SWPPP per Chapter 282 of the City Code. The projects will also result in over 112- acre of continuous impervious soil cover which typically requires a Full SWPPP with pem1anent stormwater management facilities and weekly inspections by a qualified professional. The As indicated in the previous Basic SWPPP, given the relative size of the project and since these are the only thresholds to be exceeded, the project will operate under this Basic SWPPP. The project will replace the existing permanent stonnwater management practice described below. Inspections for the permanent practices will be performed for the owner by a qualified professional. Better Site Design In accordance with City Code, projects disturbing less than one acre must apply at least two site design practices from a list of techniques described in the April 2008 NYSDEC publication titled "Better Site Design". Given the project is redeveloping a previously disturbed site, it inherently employs a number of better site design techniques including: Preservation of Undisturbed lands (Practice #1), Reduction of Clearing and Grading (Practice #3) and Locating Sites in Less Sensitive Areas (Practice #4). Since the proposed buildings are multi-story, the project will also employ the Building Footprint Reduction (Practice #10) technique. CONTROLS Temporary Erosion and Sediment Controls The proposed temporary erosion and sediment control practices, and a detailed sequencing of the major construction activities, are as indicated and described on the attached Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Sheet C106) drawing. All temporary controls are designed in accordance with the New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment ControL Permanent Stormwater Management Practices The result of this project combined with the previous one will be a reduction in impervious soil cover on the site and a reduction in the rates and volwnes of runoff leaving the site. Given these reductions, practices related to storm water quantity controls are not required. The project will replace the existing bioretention filter practice with a new buried sand filter practice designed in accordance with the 2015 New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. ln general, the manual requires a 25% in impervious cover, or water quality treatment for 25% of the impervious cover, or some combination of these 2 strategies. The amount of treatment and/or reduction in imperviousness required is 31,800 s.f. * 25% or the equivalent of approximately 8,000 s.f. of impervious cover. Since the projects reduce impervious soil cover by approximately 1,900 s.f., the amount of water quality treatment required is equivalent to approximately 6,100 s.f. of impervious soil cover. T.G. Miller, P.C. 2. June 14,2019 23 8 Dryden Road Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan This project will install a buried sand filter to provide quality treatment of runoff from the areas north of the new building currently draining to the existing bioretention filter practice. Given the drainage patterns and configuration of the site, the practice will effectively treat a catchment area of approximately 11,200 s.f. including approximately 6,900 s.f. of impervious cover, which exceeds the 6,100 s.f. required. The calculated water quality volume (WQv) to be treated is 555 c.f. and the required area of the sand filter (As) is 47 s.f. The sand filter will be enclosed in a 7-foot square structure with 49 s.f. of filter area. Pretreatment for the filter will be provided in the form of a wet sedimentation basin with a volume greater than 25% of the WQv (139 c.f. or 1,040 gals) and surface area greater than 37 s.f. The proposed volume of the sedimentation vault is I ,250 gallons with a minimum surface area of 42 s.f. Calculations for WQv, sand filter sizing and sedimentation basin sizing are attached to this rep01i. Details of the sand filter and sedimentation basin are shown on Sheet C202 of the attached drawings. Other Controls Waste Disposal All waste materials will be collected and stored in securely lidded metal dumpsters rented from a local waste management company which must be a solid waste management company licensed to do business in Tompkins County. The dumpsters will comply with all local and state solid waste management regulations. All trash and construction debris from the site will be deposited in the dumpsters. The dumpsters will be emptied a minimum of twice per week or more often if necessary, and the trash will be hauled to a landfill approved by New York State. No construction waste materials will be buried on site. All personnel will be instructed regarding the correct procedures for waste disposal. Notices stating these practices will be posted in the job site construction office trailer, and the job site superintendent will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed. Sanitary Waste All sanitary waste will be collected from pottable units by a licensed portable facility provider in complete compliance with local and state regulation. Off-Site Vehicle Tracking A stabilized construction entrance (Tracking Pad) will be provided to help reduce vehicle tracking of sediments. The paved streets adjacent to the site entrances will be inspected daily and cleaned with vacuum equipment as necessary to remove any excess mud, diti, or rock tracked from the sites. Dump trucks hauling material from the construction sites will be covered with a tarpaulin. The job site superintendent will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed. Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste All hazardous waste materials will be disposed of by the Contractor in the manner specified by local, state, and/or federal regulations and by the manufacturer of such products. Site personnel will be instructed in these practices by the job site superintendent, who will also be responsible for seeing that these practices are followed. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's) for each substance with hazardous properties that is used on the job site will be obtained and used for the proper management of potential wastes that may result from these products. An MSDS will be posted in the immediate area where such product is stored and/or used and another copy of each MSDS will be maintained in the SWPPP file at the job site construction trailer office. Each employee who must handle a substance with hazardous properties will be instructed on the use of MSDS sheets and the specific information in the applicable MSDS for the product he/she is using, particularly regarding spill control techniques. T.G. Miller, P.C. 3. June 14,2019 23 8 Dryden Road Basic Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan Any spiiis of hazardous materials which are in quantities in excess of Reportable Quantities as defined by EPA regulations shall be immediately reported to the EPA National Response Center 1- 800-424-8802. In order to minimize the potential for a spill of hazardous materials to come into contact with storrnwater, the following steps will be implemented: • All materials with hazardous properties (such as pesticides, petroleum products, fertilizers, detergents, construction chemicals, acids, paints, paint solvents, cleaning solvents, additives for soil stabilization, concrete curing compounds and additives, etc.) will be stored in a secure location, under cover, when not in use. • The minimum practical quantity of all such materials will be kept on the job site. • A spill control and. containment kit (containing, for example, absorbent such as kitty litter or sawdust, acid neutralizing powder, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, plastic and metal trash containers, etc.) will be provided at the storage site. • All of the products in a container will be used before the container is disposed. of. All such containers will be triple-rinsed with water ptior to disposal. The rinse water used in these containers will be disposed of in a manner in compliance with state and federal regulations. and will not be allowed to mix with storrnwater discharges. • All products will be stored in and used from the original container with the original product label. • All products will be used in strict compliance with instructions on the product label. • The disposal of excess or used products will be in strict compliance with instructions on the product label. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS The applicant or developer of the land development activity or his/her representative shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the applicant or developer to achieve compliance with the conditions of these regulations. Sediment shall be removed from practices whenever their design capacity has been reduced by 50%. The Stormwater Management Officer (SMO) may require such inspections as necessary to determine compliance with the SWPPP and may either approve that portion of the work completed or notify the applicant wherein the work fails to comply with the requirements of the regulations and the SWPPP as approved. The applicant shall notify the SMO when any of the following occurs: • Commencement of construction. • Commencement of installation of sediment and erosion control measures. • Commencement of site clearing. • Commencement of rough grading. • Close of the construction season. • Completion of final landscaping. • Successful establishment oflandscaping in public areas. Additionally, the City oflthaca may conduct random inspections during any phase of construction. If any violations are found., the applicant and developer shall be notified in writing of the nature of the violation and the required corrective actions. No further work shall be conducted., except for site stabilization, until any violations are corrected and all work previously completed has received approval by the Stonnwater Management Officer. T.G. Miller, P.C. 4. June 14, 2019 FORM I CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR CERTlFICA TION Construction Site: 238 Dryden Road City of Ithaca, Cayuga County, New York CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION: "I certify under penalty of law that I understand and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). I also understand that it is unlawful for any person to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards." CONTRACTOR Name: ___________________ Signature: --------------- (Print) Title: -------------~-------------Dme: _________________________ ___ Company Name: _______________________ PhoneNumber: ____________ __ Address: SUBCONTRACTOR Name: ___________________ Signature: --------------- (Print) Title: ______________________ Dme: _________________ _ Company Name: ---------------~Phone Number: --------------- Address: SUBCONTRACTOR Name: _______________________ .Signature: _______________ _ (Print) Title: ---------------------~Dme: ________________ _ Company Name: _________________ PhoneNumber: ____________ __ Address: Note: Provide addition forms as necessary for addition contractors or subcontractors. Water Quality Volume Sand Filter Sizing Sand Filter Design WQv = P * Rv * A I 12 Where: Rv = ( 0.05+0.009 * I) 0.16 Impervious Cover (acres): ~.--__ ..;;;.;..;~---' 0.22 Imperviousness, I (%): 73% WQ Storm, P (in): 1.00 Rv: 0.70 WQ Volume Required (acre-feet): 0.013 WQ Volume Required (cubic feet): 555 SA = WQv* d/[ k*(d+h)*t)] WQv (cf): 555 Depth of Filter Media, d, (ft): 1.50 Coefficient of Permability, k, (ftlday): 3.50 Average Height of Water above Filter Bed, h, (ft): 1.50 Filter Bed Drain Time, t, (days): 1.67 Surface Area Required, SA, (sf): ~.-_.__._..,··!+ol,;.V..,.···..,· ... ·..,···_._.;.JI 6900 s.f. 9500 s.f. Surface Area Provided, (sf): 50 I> Req'd, OK Pretreament Sedimentation Basin Vpt = WQv * 25% Volume of Sedimentation Basin, Vpt (cf)l 139 As = 0.066 * WQv for /<75% Surface Area of Sedimentation Basin Required, As (sf): I 37 As= 0.0081 * WQv for 1>75% Surface Area of Sedimentation Basin Required, As (sf): I n/a Client ELWYN PALMER I. LYON DRILLING co. Boring No. B1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114 SUMMIT AVE Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/20/17 Location 114 SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/20/17 ITHACA, NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED, BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME 55 Casing 3 1/4" I. D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation Approx 790 It Casing Hammer: Wt. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/20/17 12:25 PM 22.5 25.0 20.5 Rock Sampler: 03/20/17 4:20PM 40.5 46.0 8.1* Other: 03/20/17 5:10PM OUT 19.0 DRY Weather Conditions: 40 SOf\lf\l? SOIL 2:' :;; Sample Blows on Sampler ~ .0 E " 0 De th 0. 0'/0.5' 0,5'/1.0'11.0'/1.5' 1.5'12.0' N " MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS ::l >. "' z r 0:: " " Rock "' '5_ 0. 0. Recovery 0. E From To E E J Depth of " "' "' "' 0 U) (Ft) (Ft) (f) Ft. % RQD U) Change 1 0.0 2.0 s 20 8 7 6 15 1. 3 .I?.IA<2.1SI9.£' •... ------------------------------------------------------------*WATER ADDED MOIST BLACK FIRM FINE TO COARSE SAND. LITTLE TO BORING 2 2.0 4.0 s 6 5 4 4 9 1. o £!t!_s.Q.I3A':!.~-~-IB~Q~..Q98_~_JB~Q~§.B!Q!S_(fJh.!::L ______ _!"~---- MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE COARSE 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 1 1 1 1 2 0.7 SAND 4 6.0 8.0 s 1 WOH WOH 1 1.0 7.0' +OR-TRACE ROTTEN STICK APPROX 5 8.0 10.0 s 1 1 1 2 2 1.1 1/2" DIAMETER 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------11,~---GRADES TO MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND LITTLE MEDIUM SAND 6 13.0 15.0 s 1 1 2 2 3 1.4 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------1LQ. ___ 7 18.0 20.0 s 4 7 7 10 14 1.6 SATURATED BROWN FIRM FINE SAND. SOME SILT 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------?~& ___ 8 23.0 25.0 s 4 8 9 9 17 1 . 7 _'?_I)_I_l!_f3E_sQ._I?B..Q~.t!_§!~I"_!::!TI.~~-Q\!I.Y ________________ ?_~,? ____ SATURATED GREY STIFF CLAY AND SILT 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------?L? ____ 9 28.0 30.0 s 7 12.0 11% 14 23 1.7 GRADED TO SATURATED GREY HARD SILT TRACE CLAY 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------}~,Q ____ 10 33.0 35.0 s 3 3 6 6 9 1.6 GRADES TO SATURATED GREY MEDIUM CLAY LITTLE SILT 35 ------------------------------------------------------------------~-Q,~---SATURATED GREY HARD SILT AND EMBEDDED 11 38.0 40.0 s 2 3 3 4 6 1.3 FINE TO COARSE SAND. LITTLE FINE GRAVEL .Y!JI!:!_§!:l~-~~-f..B.~Q~_st!I? __ (IJ!:b:...l:!~~-fY.l~I~!3!~~) __________ ~_Q,L_ 40 12 40.5 40.8 s 50/.3 0.3 SATURATED BLACK LIGHTLY WEATHERED SOFT THIN BEDDED TO BEDDED SHALE R1 41.0 46.0 c 4.7 44 60 BORING TERMINATED AT 46.0 45 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER I. LYONDRILUNGCO. Boring No. B2 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114 SUMMIT AVE Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/21117 Location 114SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/21/17 ITHACA NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED, BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME55 Casing 3 1/4" I. D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation Aeerox. 792 ft Casing Hammer: Wt. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/21/17 4:20PM 24.5 27.0 23.5 Rock Sampler: 03/21/17 6:05PM 43.0 44.5 43.1 Other: 03/21/17 6:30PM OUT 40.0 DRY Weather Conditions: 45 SOI'li\IY' SOIL ~ ~ Q) Sample Blows on Sampler !l .a E "' 0.5'11.0'11.0'/1.5' 8 De th a. 0'/0.5' 1.5'12.0' N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS :J :;:: &. z Q) ~ Rock Q) :g_ 1i. Recovery 1i. J Depth of E From To E E Q) " (Ft} (Ft} " Ft. % ROD " Change Cl rn rn rn 1 0.0 2.0 s 25 15 9 6 24 1.5 -~-fd'._f_!5:IOP ______________________________________________ 0.2 ---- MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND AND 2 2.0 4.0 s 2 2 2 2 4 1.6 £Jt!E GJ3b..Y.~.!--------------------------------------Q2_-MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND AND 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 2 3 3 3 6 0.6 £Jtl§..§.M..Y.s\;.;l:JlTLE CQ6h FILL ____________________ l§....._ MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND 4.5 4 6.0 8.0 s 4 3 3 2 6 0.6 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND .IB.~.f.s£Jtl.~..9.!3AY..s~-------·---------·-----·-------·--~L--5 8.0 10.0 s 2 4 6 5 10 1.6 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE SILT 10 .lRAC_!:_f3.Q9l£.@.§.!3.§.. _______________________ ~;Q... MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE g_Q~B§.§..§6!::!P ____________________________________ !i:Q. ____ 6 13.0 15.0 s 4 12 18 14 30 1.1 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE SILT 13.5 wErsR.owN-HARosTL:r-:-soME FINE"-sA"No ________________ 15 TRACE FINE GRAVEL -----------·---------·---------·-----·---------..J.§& ... 7 18.0 20.0 s 12 18 23 25 41 1.7 MOIST BROWN COMPACT FINE SAND AND SILT -·--------·-----------------·--------------------?1:£.. __ 20 SATURATED GREY SOFT CLAY. LITTLE SILT 8 23.0 25.0 s 1 2 3 3 5 1.6 25.0 -GRADESTO-SAT-URATED-G-REY-MEDiUM CU\Y. ----------- 25 9 25.0 27.0 s 12 5 6 7 11 1.7 LITTLE SILT. TRACE FINE GRAVEL 30 10 30.0 32.0 s 3 4 5 8 9 1.8 35 11 35.0 37.0 s 7 10 12 14 22 1.8 ---------------------------------------------~E.:~---GRADES TO SATURATED GREY HARD SILT TRACE CLAY ---------------------------------------------~:.2...-GRADES TO SATURATED GREY MEDIUM CLAY. 40 12 40.0 42.0 s 3 3 5 5 8 1.9 LITTLE SILT ·----------·-----------··-------------------·------1-~,? __ £_oss.l~_\:.E_I!LL !::!.!5.s!VfA r.s~IAL _________________________ 1~,.L. SATURATED BLACK POSSIBLE WEATHERED 13 44.0 44.1 s 50/.1 0.1 SHALE AUGER REFUSAL 45 BORING TERMINATED AT 44.5 AT 44.5 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER I. LYON DRILLING co. Boring No. B3 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114SUMMIT AVE Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/23/17 Location 114 SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/23/17 ITHACA NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME55 Casing 3 1/4" I. D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation A!:!erox. 791 tt Casing Hammer: WI. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/23/17 3:45PM 32.5 35.0 27.3 Rock Sampler: 03/23/17 6:15PM OUT 23.7 DRY Other: Weather Conditions: 35SOf\lf\l7 SOIL 2:' ~ " Sample Blows on Sampler ~ .c " E De th c. 0'/0.5' o.5'/1.o' I 1.o·11.5" 1.5'12.0" N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS "' ~ " z 0: " "' Rock "' t "5. "5. Recovery "5. E From To E E I Depth of "' ., (Ft) (Ft) ., Ft. % RQD ., Change Cl rn Cf) Cf) 1 0.0 2.0 s 18 10 4 4 14 1.3 .J?.l:f.CIQQ£'.. ____________________________________ 1?.:1__ MOIST BROWN FIRM COARSE TO FINE SAND 2 2.0 4.0 s 2 2 1 2 3 0.7 AND FINE GRAVEL. TRACE BRICK 1.7 ·Moisr-B"RoiivN IoosE"-F=TNE-i:>AND. TRAcE-i=INE -------------- 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 1 3 3 3 6 1.2 GRAVEL 4.0 ·MoiS-r· BROiNN-fir,i"E-sAN"D. soME ·siL =r:rR.A:cE ----------- 4 6.0 8.0 s 3 3 3 3 6 1.2 J3..QQ1§ _______________________________________ ..1.:2__ .MQ.!§:!_!?Rq_yvN IJ2Q.9.§.£l~E.I9..M~~M...~~~-------~ 5 8.0 10.0 s 3 3 3 3 6 1.5 MQl§I!JRQ.~N LO_Q.SE FIN_~ SA!:!_!? ______________ ~-- 10 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE SILT 6 13.0 15.0 s 2 4 5 7 9 1.6 ____________________________________________ j.1jl_ GRADES TO WET BROWN FINE SAND. LITTLE 15 SILT -----·----·----------------·--------------------JL? ___ 7 18.0 20.0 s 9 12 14 18 26 1.6 SATURATED BROWN HARD SILT. SOME FINE SAND 20 ___________________________________________ ?_g,g ___ 8 23.0 25.0 s 2 2 3 3 5 1.8 SATURATED GREY SOFT CLAY. SOME SILT 25 9 28.0 30.0 s 2 5 8 8 13 1.6 30 10 33.0 35.0 s 2 8 12 16 20 1.7 33.5 "GiW5Esro-sATURATEDGREY "sTiFFVARVED ------------ 35 SILT WITH INNER BEDDED GREY CLAY SEAMS UP TO 3" THICK --------------------------------------------11L. 11 38.0 40.0 s 8 8 10 10 18 1.0 GRADES TO SATURATED GREY CLAY LITTLE SILT 40 12 43.0 45.0 s 2 4 7 8 11 1.9 _________________________________________________ j.§2_ ___ 45 MOIST GREY COMPACT FINE SAND. SOME MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND AND FINE GRAVj::L .Ull±..!:l!.<..S.~!'.IsBl!'l-L _____________________________ 1_g,g ____ 13 48.0 49.7 s 48 33 41 50/.2 74 1.0 POSSIBLE WEATHERED SHALE AUGER REFUSAL BORING TERMINATED AT 50.0 AT 50.0' 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER ~ .. LYON DRILLING CO. Boring No. B4 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114 SUMMIT AVE Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/22/17 Location 114 SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/22/17 ITHACA, NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED, BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME 55 Casing 3 1/4" J.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation Approx. 792 ft Casing Hammer: Wt. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/22/17 3:50PM 42.5 45.0 37.0 Rock Sampler: 03/22/17 5:30PM OUT 33.0 DRY Other: Weather Conditions: <:;Q[Ij Wli\!15'\' SOIL 2::' (;; Sample Blows on Sampler <1) .0 > E "' 0 Depth "-0'/0.5' 0.5'/1.0' 1.0'/1.5' 1.5'/2.0' N <) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS " >. Ql z r-0:: " "' Rock " '8. Ci. Ci. Recovery Ci. E From To E E \ Depth of " "' (Ft) "' " 0 (j) (Ft) (f) Ft. % RQD (j) Change 1 0.0 2.0 s 4 5 7 5 12 1.1 _1?0.f_JS.I.9J:' __________________________________________________________ g":t__ ___ 0-.3 FROST MOIST BLACK FINE SAND WITH COAL ASH 2 2.0 4.0 s 5 6 5 6 11 1. 0 _"f_f3_~.f~_I?_F3.L<;;_JS.ff.1!:~) _____________________________________________ ~?__ __ MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 1 2 2 3 4 1 . 2 g_Q6B.§E:_~~t:JP. _________________________________________________ ~§. ____ NO ROOTS BELOW 4.5 WET BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. LITTLE SILT 4 6.0 8.0 s 2 3 3 4 6 1.0 TRACE ROOTS 5 8.0 10.0 s 2 4 5 6 9 1.0 10 6 13.0 15.0 s 2 5 2 1 7 1.1 15 COBBLE AT 17.0 7 18.0 20.0 s 1 2 2 3 4 1.4 __________________________________________________________________ ?ll ___ 20 SATURATED BROWN FIRM FINE SAND AND SILT 8 23.0 25.0 s 6 7 6 8 13 1.7 25 9 28.0 30.0 s 4 10 11 11 21 1.6 ___________________________________________________________________________ ?_~,~---- 3?~"f_I}_I3_6.T£:_QQBE:J::.!:i6!3.Q_.§!!:-..I~-~lli1.§_~!:6.'!.: ______________ ~1:§. ___ 30 GRADES TO SATURATED GREY HARD SILT TRACE CLAY 10 33.0 35.0 s 7 11 12 15 23 1.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------}1:§. ___ 35 SATURATED GREY MEDIUM CLAY. LITTLE SILT 11 38.0 40.0 s 1 3 5 7 8 1.8 40 12 43.0 45.0 s 2 3 5 5 8 1.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------11:§ ____ 45 SATURATED GREY COMPACT FINE TO COARSE -~-6.1:J.Qc_"f)b~--~[!_(£!.J.l6._~gJ3!6h ____________________________________________ SATURATED BLACK POSSIBLE WEATHERED 13 48.0 48.7 s 8 50/.2 0.5 SHALE BORING TERMINATED AT 48.7 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER I. LYON DRILLING co. Boring No. B5 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114SUMMIT AVE Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/21/17 Location 114SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/21/17 ITHACA NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED, BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME55 Casing 3 1/4"1.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation Aeerox. 789 ft Casing Hammer: WI. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/21/17 11:20 AM 17.5 20.0 17.5 Rock Sampler: 03/21/17 12:56 PM 36.5 37.8 34.5 Other: 03/21/17 1:30PM OUT 9.0 DRY Weather Conditions: 40 1:5'i7E~t::AST SOIL 2:' ~ Q) Sample Blows on Sampler ~ .c E Q) 8 De th 0. 0'/0.5' 0.5'/1.0'11.0'/1.5' 1.5'12.0' N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS :;;, ?:: " z 0:: ., " Rock " % c. c. Recovery ~ E From To E I Depth of " "' (Ft} (Ft} "' Ft. % RQD "' Change 0 (/) (/) (/) 1 0.0 2.0 s 6 4 3 1 7 0.8 .§-~~ISTOf ___________________________________________ ru._ __ MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND 2 2.0 4.0 s 1 2 8 4 10 0.5 LITTLE FINE GRAVEL. TRACE ROOTS. TRACE .f?R19.~---------------------------------------------~Q. ____ 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 4 3 3 2 6 0.5 MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND. SOME FINE GRAVEL WITH CONCRETE. TRACE 4 6.0 8.0 s 2 1 1 1 2 1.1 _f?..RIC~(E!!-.!:) ____________________________ ~Q._- MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. LITTLE 5 8.0 10.0 s 1 4 2 3 6 1.5 -~!:6.~-~..l.~f..UY_OOD (flh..!:l _________________ '[.L __ 10 MOIST DARK BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE B_OOT§_ffiiT!=ft.~§_!'!,AT~_t...h} _________________ ~j_- MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO COARSE SAND 9.0 6 13.0 15.0 s 6 8 9 11 17 1.6 :r~9iSi:~~:B9yvN ~9.~ui~:S§~if.!!§6c~~iG~=:==J~~--- WET BROWN FIRM FINE SAND. LITTLE SILT 15 ________________________________________ 1l:.Q. ___ 7 18.0 20.0 s 3 4 5 8 9 1.8 WET BROWN MEDIUM SILT. SOME CLAY. LITTLE FINE SAND. TRACE FINE GRAVEL 20 ___________________________________ ?3.5 __ 8 23.0 25.0 s 3 5 7 8 12 1.7 GRADES TO SATURATED GREY MEDIUM SILT S#8 PENETROMETER TRACE CLAY READING 3 25 9 28.0 30.0 s 5 5 4 5 9 1.8 ------------------------------------------------~2..-S#9 PENETROMETER GRADES TO SATURATED GREY MEDIUM CLAY READING 1.25 30 SOME SILT ----------------------------------------------------~.1.9.. ___ §IMIL6!3...:.§9f1. ___________________________ ~_1,9 ___ 10 33.0 35.0 s 2 3 9 20 12 1.7 MOIST GREY COMPACT FINE SAND. SOME MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND. LITTLE FINE 35 -GRAVEL-(TILL LIK-EMATE-RiAL) ________________________ ------------------------------------------------~.§:.?_ __ SATURATED BLACK POSSIBLE WEATHERED 11 37.0 37.8 s 41 50/.3 1.7 SHALE AUGER REFUSAL BORING TERMINATED AT 38.0 AT 38.0' 40 45 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER I Boring No. B6 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114SUMMIT AVE LYON DRILLING CO. Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/24/07 Location 114 SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/24/17 ITHACA, NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED, BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME 55 Casing 3 1/4" !.D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation Approx. 790 ft Casing Hammer: Wt. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/24/17 1:30PM 34.5 36.0 DRY Rock Sampler: 03/24/17 2:30PM OUT 29.3 DRY Other: Weather Conditions: 32 ~AIN -42 C:WOCi? SOIL i':' iJ Sample 61ows on Sampler " .0 > E " 0 Depth a. 0'/0.5' o.s·,1.o· I 1.0'/1.5' 1.5'/2.0' N " MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS ::> :>. Q) z I-rt: Q) " Rock " % 0. 0. Recovery 0. E From To E E I Depth of Q) ro ro ro 0 rn (Ft) (Ft) rn Ft. % ROD rn Change 1 0.0 2.0 s 10 4 4 5 8 1. o .I?.i!.'S.ISI.Q£' ________________________________________________________ g"j _____ MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND 0.8 2 2.0 4.0 s 1 2 2 3 4 1.4 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE TO MEDIUM SAND -~!ll~-~-f!t':\§_§!3.~.'!-~-~-~E.~ . .L------------------------------------------5 3 4.0 6.0 s 1 2 2 3 4 1.1 MOIST DARK BROWN FINE SAND. LITTLE SILT T~CE ROOTS .(POSSIBLE OLD TOPSOIL) 3.0 4 6.0 8.0 s 3 3 4 3 7 1.2 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. LITTLE -~§PJ\.!!0J?.A._f:!_Q..I_Q£Jl::IE.._\?_~~s~-----------------------------~§. ____ 5 8.0 10.0 s 3 5 5 6 10 1.3 MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE 10 _f3_QQI_E? __________________________________________________________ ~"Q ____ WET BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. LITTLE SILT 6 13.0 15.0 s 6 10 12 15 22 1.6 -----------------------------------------------------------------------1A,? ____ WET BROWN HARD SILT. SOME FINE SAND 15 --------------------------------------------------------------------------1LQ.... __ 7 18.0 20.0 s 3 5 7 9 12 1 . e .WE.l.0.~LfY.1§!2!~M_c;_~y,_~QMs.~.L~l----------------------?.1:? ____ GRADES TO WET GREY VARVED SILT 20 -------------------------------------------------------------------..?:t9 ___ 8 23.0 25.0 s 8 10 12 12 22 1.7 SATURATED GREY STIFF CLAY ------------------------------------------------------------------?§,§. ___ 25 SATURATED GREY SOFT CLAY. LITTLE SILT 9 28.0 30.0 s 1 2 2 4 4 1.8 30 -----------------------------------------------------------------}A,§. ___ 10 33.0 34.6 s 3 6 8 50/.1 1.4 WET GREY MEDIUM SILT. SOME FINE TO COARSE SAND 34.5 35 11 35.5 35.7 s 50/.2 o.2 ·Moisr-8"REY"rossTsiE:-wEii THER'Eo-si=iAt:E" ____________________ AUGER REFUSAL BORING TERMINATED AT 36.0 AT 36.0 40 45 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER I Boring No. B7 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114 SUMMIT AVE LYON DRILLING CO. Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/24/07 Location 114 SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/24/17 ITHACA, NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED, BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME55 Casing 3 1/4" I. D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation AEErox. 791 ft. Casing Hammer: Wt. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/24/17 6:25PM 38.5 39.5 DRY Rock Sampler: 03/24/17 6:55PM OUT 34.5 DRY Other: Weather Conditions: 42<:i\i!:~c~T SOIL 1::' ~ " Sample Blows on Sampler ~ .a "' E De th c. 0'/0.S 0.5'/1.0' 1.0'/1.5' 1.5'/2.0' N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS " ~ " z 0:: " "' Rock ..2! t 0. 0. Recovery c. I Depth of E From To E E " ., (Ft) (Ft) ., Ft. % RQD ., Change 0 Ul en Ul 1 0.0 2.0 s 11 8 5 4 13 0.6 -~'=f...f_15IOP ______________________________________ QJ_-'-- MOIST BROWN LOOSE COARSE TO FINE SAND 2 2.0 4.0 s 3 2 1 1 3 0.9 -~-liD FJ.!'JE GRAV_E_hif.!h!L __________________________ !:.? ___ MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 1 2 3 4 5 1.0 FINE GRAVEL 7.5 4 6.0 . 8.0 s 3 4 4 5 8 1.3 -~OI~I..§.BQ..\(1/N LQQ?.££!!':!.~-SAfii1..bLTll.~.§l!,l ________ ll:Q. ___ MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND .5 8.0 10.0 s 5 6 6 9 12 1.4 10 11.5 -G"R'io'Es_r_o_ wE"r-sRowN-sTIF'F"siLT. ·soM_E' _____________ FINE SAND 6 13.0 15.0 s 8 8 9 10 17 1.6 15 7 18.0 20.0 s 3 6 7 10 13 1.8 -----------------------------------------------_1~§ ___ GRADES TO WET GREY SILT. LITTLE FINE 20 SAND 22.0 GRADES TO-WETGREY MEDiurXSiLT.-TRACE ________ CLAY 8 23.0 25.0 s 3 5 7 14 12 1.4 --------------------------------------------------------?~,~--GRADES TO MOIST GREY HARD SILT. TRACE 25 CLAY AUGERS HARDER 9 28.0 30.0 s 8 11 9 14 20 1.9 AT 25.5 30 -------------------------------------------------~~,Q. __ GRADES TO SATURATED GREY SOFT CLAY LITTLE SILT 10 33.0 35.0 s 1 2 3 5 5 1.9 ----------------------------------------------------37.5 - 35 SATURATED GREY FINE TO COARSE SAND. .?.QM_;_~_T _ _l'[ILLJ:l~M!\.IJ'..BIALl__ ____________________ ~~L .. SATURATED BLACK POSSIBLE WEATHERED 11 38.0 38.9 s 50/.4 0.4 SHALE AUGER REFUSAL BORING TERMINATED AT 39.5 AT 39.5 40 45 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE {607)842-6580 Client ELWYN PALMER I. LYONDRILLINGCO. Boring No. B8 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project No. Project 114 SUMMIT AVE Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started 03/27/17 Location 114 SUMMIT AVE, BORING LOG Date Completed 03/27/17 ITHACA, NY Driller HARRY LYON Boring Location AS STAKED BY CLIENT Drill Rig CME 55 Casing 3 1/4" I. D. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS Surface Elevation Approx 792ft Casing Hammer: Wt. lb. Fall in. Ground Water Observations Soil Sampler 2" SPLIT SPOON Date Time Casing at Hole at Water at Sample Hammer: Wt. 140 lb. Fall 30 in. 03/27/17 3:55PM 39.0 40.5 35.5 Rock Sampler: 03/27/17 4:20PM OUT 16.5 DRY Other: Weather Conditions: 50 liVfORCA~i SOIL ~ :;; Blows on Sam_pler "' .a Sample > E <1> 0 Depth a. 0'10.5' 0.5'11.0' 1.0'11.5' 1.5'12.0' N " MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS ::J >-"' z r-0:: <1> <1> Rock "' £i Q. Q. Recovery Q. a. E From To E E I Depth of <1> "' (Fl) (Ft) ro Ft. % ROD "' Change 0 (/) (/) (/) 1 0.5 2.0 s 1 3 3 9 1.1 _l?_l,6f_ISI9£' ________________________________________________________ 9"? ____ MOIST BROWN COARSE TO FINE SAND AND 2 2.0 4.0 s 3 6 6 7 12 1. 3 £1!':!E..Q.I3!.:Y..~_\Jf..l~-~L-----------------------------------------9"§.. ___ MOIST BROWN LOOSE FINE SAND. TRACE 5 3 4.0 6.0 s 5 12 11 10 23 1.5 -~L~I-------------------------------------------------------------1".5.. ____ MOIST BROWN MEDIUM SILT AND FINE SAND 5.0 4 6.0 8.0 s 8 9 9 12 18 1.5 -~Ql§I.J?.BQ:N_t! • .E!I3~ • .El!':!E.§t'-NQ ___________________________ _1Q. ____ MOIST BROWN FIRM FINE SAND. TRACE SILT 5 8.0 9.7 s 5 12 34 50/.2 46 0.9 S#S DROVE COBBLE 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------.1.t!L __ WET BROWN FIRM FINE SAND. SOME SILT 6 13.0 15.0 s 5 6 8 8 14 1.3 15 --------------------------------------------------------------------~l:Q ___ MOIST BROWN MEDIUM CLAY. LITTLE SILT 7 18.0 20.0 s 4 4 6 6 10 1.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------1!L!?.. ___ WET GREY MEDIUM CLAY. LITTLE SILT 20 8 23.0 25.0 s 2 4 6 9 10 1.8 ------------------------·---------------------------------------------?-~,? ____ GRADES TO WET GREY VARVED MEDIUM 25 SILT AND CLAY 9 28.0 30.0 s 5 9 8 14 17 1.7 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------?.:!:2. ___ GRADES TO SATURATED GREY STIFF SILT 10 33.0 35.0 s 2 6 10 12 16 1 . 9 J.l3.8.9.~--g-~y_ __________________________________________________ }_~,~--- SATURATED GREY SOFT CLAY. LITTLE SILT 35 ------------------------------------------------------------------93!:2... .. -~-~Il!.13.C'o1.~.!2. GR~Y..M.~.QJl!.~_§Lh.1,.~JII!o.f::_Q~L ________ 1_Q,Q ____ 11 38.0 40.0 s 1 3 6 8 9 1.8 -~-~Tl!.13.A.1.~J2.9..13~Y.§.l'=.T,_~Q_¥.E.£J.~_t_0?8.~.Q ________________ 1Q,?.. ___ SATURATED GREY POSSIBLE WEATHERED 40 12 40.0 40.2 s 50/.2 0.2 SHALE AUGER REFUSAL BORING TERMINATED AT 40.5 AT 40.5 45 50 7426 SHACKHAM ROAD TULLY, N.Y. PHONE (607)842-6580 Ray Schlather From: Ray Schlather Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 4:52 PM To: Cc: Subject: Hi Folks, Marcus Wiggins (marcuswiggins@hotmail.com); Kaethe Bessou; Scott Wiggins Laurie Schutt development I just finished a phone call with Kopko. He wants to buy the 10% interest in the top floor for $67,500, and is willing to allow a prompt sale of the remainder interest (the first floor-53%) to Kelly-or anyone else- provided that he has a right to buy that as welt matching the price and terms offered in a bona fide offer, to be exercised within a limited time frame. Before any decision is made at our end, I will reach out to Kelly and find out whether she is interested in the first floor at a cost of $412,500 for that controlling 53% interest. Kopko reiterated that he would get me the transcript of the meeting by the end of this week. I made clear that if Kelly was not willing to go this route, we would stand on the agreement to accept Kelly's offer, and forge ahead with litigation if necessary. I will keep you posted. Best, Ray Raymond M. Schlather Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP 200 East Buffalo Street P.O. Box 353 Ithaca, New York 14851-0353 (607) 273-2202 1