The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-23-18 Planning & Development Board Meeting Agenda PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AGENDA The regular meeting of the PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m. on JANUARY 23 , 2018 in COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS, City Hall, 108 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY. AGENDA ITEM Approx. Start Time 1. Agenda Review 6:00 2 Special Order of Business – Update and Feedback on Green Building Policy Project – Nick Goldsmith 6:05 3. Privilege of the Floor (3-minute maximum per person ― if you will be speaking about a project with a scheduled PUBLIC HEARING below , you are highly encouraged to speak at that time) 6:30 4. Subdivision Review Project Major Subdivision 6:40 Location 209 Hudson Street, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17 Applicant : Jagat Sharma, architect for Bia Stavropoulos, Owner Actions Declaration of Lead Agency Public Hearing  Review of FEAF Part 2 & 3 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17 measuring 26,484 SF (.608 acres) into three lots; Lot 1 measuring 5,820 SF ( .34 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St and containing the existing house; Lot 2 measuring 5,942 SF ( .136 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St; and Lot 3 measuring 14,708 SF (.338 acres) with 42’ of frontage on Hudson St. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District which has the following minimum area requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 45’ of street frontage for single or two family dwellings, 30% lot coverage, 25’ front yard, 10’ side yard, and a rear yard of 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’. The subdivision requires area variances for an existing side yard deficiency on Lot 1 and a newly created street frontage deficiency for Lot 2. The project is also in the South Hill Overlay District. Access to all three sites will be from the existing driveway – which will require easements to ensure permanent access. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to environmental review. 5 Site Plan Review A. Project Residential Development- Two Duplexes 7:00 Location 209 Hudson Street, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17 Applicant : Jagat Sharma, architect for Bia Stavropoulos, Owner Actions Declaration of Lead Agency Public Hearing  Review of FEAF Part 2 & 3 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into three lots (see above), retain the existing house on one lot, and to build two new duplexes- one on each of the remaining two lots. Access to all three sites will be from the existing driveway – which will require easements to ensure permanent access. The project includes 6 parking spaces, retaining/stone walls, new paving, walkways and landscaping. Site development will require the removal of an existing pool, wooden fence and shed, eleven mature trees and associated paving and landscape elements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District for which area variances are required (see above). The project is also in the South Hill Overlay District for which subdivision is required as district re quirement allow no more than one primary use per tax parcel. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to environmental review CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 JoAnn Cornish, Director DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Start Times: Start times are approximate only — APPLICANTS are responsible for being available at whatever time(s) their agenda item(s) is actually discussed. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 2 B. Project Chesterson House (Building Addition, Parking and Landscape Improvements) 7:20 Location 111-115 The Knoll Applicant Karl Johnson for Chesterson House Inc. Actions  Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Project Description: The applicant is proposing to expand and convert a single family home into a congregate living facility for up to 16 individuals. The expansion will involve the demolition of an existing ga rage and the construction of a two-story addition containing 4 bedrooms. Site modifications include expansion of the existing parking area to connect it to the parking area on the adjacent 115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a terrace and pati o, bike racks and lighting. Site development will include the removal of ten mature trees. The project requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 the Knoll. The project is in the R -U Zoning district and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ILPC. This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(9) for which the Lead Agency made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on December 19, 2017. C. Project Stewart Park Inclusive Playground 7:40 Location Stewart Park Applicant : Rick Manning for the City of Ithaca Actions Declaration of Lead Agency Public Hearing  Review of FEAF Part 2 & 3 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessible playground with a splash pad, separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an accessible berm with a pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding pieces of play equipment, a new structure that will contain a covered picnic pavili on, two accessible bathrooms and storage/office space, and accessible paths linking the playground to other areas of the park. The project also includes installing a permanent structure to cover the carousel, reorganization of the adjacent parking area to add 35 spaces, new plantings, signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The project is in Stewart Park and the P-1 Zoning District. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review. D. Waterfront Projects- Sketch Plan #2 8:00 5. Zoning Appeals  #3086, 106 E Court St, Area Variance  #3087, 607 N Aurora St, Area Variance  #3088, 920 N Tioga St, Area Variance 8:30 6. Old/New Business – Review of Agenda for Special Meeting 1/30/18 8:40 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair (verbal) 8:50 B. Director of Planning & Development (verbal) 8. Approval of Minutes: December 19, 2017 (time permitting) 9:05 9. Adjournment 9:10 ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE You may access this agenda (including attachments) by going to the “Agenda Center” on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/agendacenter), under “Planning & Development Board.” For ease-of-access, a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda is always accessible on the Planning Board home page: http://www.cityofithaca.org/354/Planning-Development-Board. If you have a disability & would like specific accommodation to participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by 12:00 p.m., 2-3 business days (not including weekends/holidays) before the meeting. L.01 PLANTING PLAN 1”-20’-0” DECEMBER 15, 2017 JANUARY 16, 2018 ABV COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE QTY NOTES DAF Daffodil Narcissus sp.large bulb 250 see Plant List SNO Snow Drops Galanthus nivalis bulb 200 see Plant List CRO Crocus Crocus sp.bulb 100 see Plant List MIS Mission Bells Fritillaria sp.bulb 100 see Plant List ARB Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 45 gal. or B&B 3” cal.1 see Plant List BOX Green Mound Boxwood Buxus sp. ‘Green Mound’5 gal.10 see Plant List LIL Lilac ‘Palibin’Syringa meyeri ‘Palibin’7 gal.1 see Plant List BUG Bugloss Brunnera macrophylla ‘Jack Frost’2 gal.5 see Plant List OST Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris 2 gal.23 see Plant List GOLF Goldflame Spirea Spirea x bumalda x ‘Goldflame’5/7 gal.8 see Plant List GOLM Goldmound Spirea Spirea japonica ‘Goldmound’5/7 gal.11 see Plant List SPI Spicebush Lindera benzoin 25 gal. or B&B 2.5” cal.3 see Plant List LUN Lungwort Pulmonaria officinalis 2 gal.8 see Plant List HEL Hellebores Helleborus sp.2 gal.3 see Plant List PIE Pieris Pieris japonica 5/7 gal.10 see Plant List LIG Ligularia Ligularia sp.2 gal.5 see Plant List FLO Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 25 gal. or B&B 2.5” cal.1 see Plant List WEE Weeping Cherry Prunus subhirtella var. pendula 25 gal. or B&B 2.5” cal.2 see Plant List REDO Red Oak Quercus rubra 45 gal. or B&B 3” cal.4 see Plant List SUG Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 45 gal. or B&B 3” cal.2 see Plant List CAT Catalpa Catalpa speciosa 45 gal. or B&B 3” cal.1 see Plant List AES Red Horsechestnut Aesculus x carnea ‘Briotii’45 gal. or B&B 3” cal.1 see Plant List SPR Norway Spruce Picea abies 45 gal. or B&B 3” cal.4 see Plant List PLANTING SCHEDULE Existing Maple Existing Street Tree Existing Street Tree Existing Weeping Cherry Existing Weeping Cherry WEE ARB SPR(3) SPR BOX(4) BOX(4) GOLF(4) GOLF(4) BOX BOX GOLM(5) SPIOST(3) PIE(2) GOLF(3) LUN(3) OST(2)HEL SPI LIG HEL PIE(2) LIG LUN(5) GOLM(3) OST(3) LIG LIG BUG BUG BUG PIE(2) PIE(2) LIL OST(2) OST(2) OST(4) PIE(2) BUG(2) OST(3) HELFLO OST(4) LIG(2) SPI EXISTING TREE NOTES: All existing trees remaining on site affected by construction shall be barricaded pursuant to Barricade Plan/Elevation/Section on Plant List, Details, and Specifications sheet L.02 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GOLM REDO(3) REDO SUG(2) CAT WEE AES PLANTING DETAILS - TREES PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS HOLE EXCAVATION Before digging the hole in well drained soil, 1) locate the point where the top-most root emerges from the trunk (it should be within the top 2 inches of the ball), and 2) measure the distance between the top-most root and the bottom of the root ball. Dig the hole about 10% shallower than this depth and as wide as possible (at least 1.5 times the width of the ball). If the top-most root is deeper than 2 inches remove soil so it is within the top two inches. Severe circling roots where appropriate. The root ball should be po- sitioned in the hole so the finished grade of the landscape soil is even with or slightly lower than the point where the top-most root emerges from the trunk. Then apply soil or mulch so it covers the sides of the root ball. Be sure that when you are finished planting, there is NO LANDSCAPE SOIL, and little or no mulch, placed over the top of the root ball. Landscape soil (as well as thick mulch layers more than 1 or 2 inches deep) spread over the root ball can prevent water and air from entering the root ball. When finished planting, the point where the top-most root in the root ball originates from the trunk should be within the top two inches of the root ball. The trunk flare might be visible on some trees depending on age and tree type. In poorly drained soil, position the root ball shallower than indicated above to fit the conditions of the site. Mulch should only cover the edge of the root ball since thick layers over the root ball can keep it too moist or too dry. Mulch on the trunk can also cause bark deterioration and encourage trunk disease. FERTILIZATION Organic slow release (compost or controlled release) fertilizer can be ap- plied on top of the root ball and backfill soil or on top of the mulch at plant- ing. There is no need to mix it with the backfill soil or place it at the bottom of the planting hole since most roots end up close to the soil surface in urban and suburban landscapes. Under most circumstances, mulch will not steal the fertilizer from the tree. Adding organic slow release fertilizer at planting has been associated with improved survival and increased growth after planting. It will not hurt the plant provided it is applied according to the directions on the product. On the other hand, adding soluble fertilizer to a newly installed plant could burn roots if too much is applied. This will injure the plant and could kill it. MULCHING Weed and turf suppression during establishment is essential. Apply a 2-3 inch thick layer (after settling) of mulch around the plant to help discourage weeds. This area should be maintained during the establishment period at least two feet in diameter for each inch of tree trunk diameter. If you wish to place mulch over the root ball, apply only a thin layer over the outer half of the root ball. This keeps the trunk dry and allows rainwater, irrigation, and air to easily enter the root ball. Mulch resting on the trunk and applying too thick a layer can stress the plant by oxygen starvation, death of bark, stem and root diseases, prevention of hardening off for winter, rodent damage to trunk, keeping soil too wet, and repelling water. Mulch on the root ball has little impact on water lose from the tree since about 90% of the moisture that leaves the root ball does so by transpiration, not evaporation. Only about 10% leaves the root ball by evaporation from the surface of the root ball. STAKING In many instances, if root balls are heavy enough stakes are not necessary. Stake to stabilize the root ball. Two or three wood dowels driven through edge of root ball. See Diagram. ESTABLISHMENT Trees provided with regular irrigation through the first growing season af- ter transplanting require up to 12 months per inch of trunk diameter to fully establish roots in the landscape soil. Trees that are under-irrigated during this establishment period often require additional time to establish because roots grow more slowly. Most trees are under-irrigated during the establish- ment period. Because roots are not fully established, be prepared to irrigate through the entire establishment period, especially in drought. IRRIGATION Unlike established plants, research clearly shows that recently transplanted trees and shrubs establish quickest with light, frequent irrigation. For trees planted in spring or summer, provide two waterings each week during the first few months after planting. Following the initial few months of frequent irrigation, provide weekly irrigation until plants are fully established. At each irrigation, apply about 2 to 3 gallons of water per inch trunk diameter (e.g. 4-6 gallons for a 2-inch tree) over the root ball. PLANTING DETAILS - SHRUBS PLANTING DETAILS - PERENNIALS PLANT LIST - for 209 Hudson St. This plant list is part of your Planting Plan. It is a site-specific plant list developed for your property that addresses the beauty and aesthetic improvement of the site, while also restoring, enhancing, and expanding flower-rich habi- tat that supports the health of the land, pollinators such as bees & butterflies, and local birds & wildlife. BULBS – To be scattered in masses throughout planting beds. Plant in FALL. (250) Daffodil (Narcissus sp.) - A hardy, spring flowering bulb naive to meadows and woods in Europe, North Af- rica and West Asia. Recognizable with its characteristic yellow flowers, daffodils are a harbinger of spring in NY. Deer Resistant. (200) Snow Drops (Galanthus nivalis) – A very early blooming (some years in march) perennial, herbaceous plant which grow from a bulb. Small plant with white flowers, sometimes seen while snow is still on the ground. Deer Resistant. (100) Crocus (Crocus sp.) - An early spring blooming perennial growing from a corm or bulb. The cup or vase- shaped, solitary flower colors vary enormously, although lilac, mauve, yellow, and white are predominant. Deer Resistant. (100) Mission Bells (Fritillaria sp.) - There are several mission bell varieties that thrive in the upstate NY region. These showy bulbs add spring interest to gardens, and accompany other bulbs well. Deer Resistant. PERENNIALS - containerized 1 & 2 gal. (5) Bugloss (Brunnera macrophylla) - Bugloss is most at home in woodlands or shady gardens, where it will form a lush understory of quiet beauty. One of its common names, False Forget-me-not, refers to the intense azure flowers. ‘Jack Frost’ is a standout variety with silvery leaves veined and outlined in green. The plants grow to 12″ tall and as wide, topped in May and June by clusters of blue flowers. (23) Ostrich Fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) – A stately fern that is colony forming and spreading. The tightly wound immature fronds, called fiddleheads, are also used as a cooked vegetable and are considered a delicacy in rural areas of northeastern North America. (8) Lungwort (Pulmonaria officinalis) - Lungwort is a wonderful flowering woodland shade plant. This clumping, borage relative is a beauty in the perennial woodland garden. Pulmonaria leaves are deer-resistant and range from solid green to nearly pure silver. Pulmonaria cultivars rival hellebores to be the first flowering perennials in the late winter and early spring. (3) Hellebores (Helleborus sp.) - These evergreen plants bring an architectural quality to the shady garden. Most bloom in early winter in mild climates and in late winter or very early spring where the ground freezes hard. Resis- tant to both deer and voles, they are long-lived and provide exquisite blooms at a time when flowers are a scarce delight. (5) Ligularia (Ligularia sp.) - This plant’s stunning foliage is a show-stopper in the garden! Most varieties have ex- tremely large, bold dark green to black heart-shaped leaves. These are topped by stems of bright, cheery orange or yellow flowers. Ligularias can be a great contrast for more delicately-leaved plants, and are frequently planted with other shady and water-loving plants SHRUBS - containerized 5 & 7 gal. (10) Green Mound Boxwood (Buxus microphylla var. japonica ‘Green Mound’) - A compact, rounded evergreen shrub, ‘Green Mound’ has smooth-margined, glossy, deep green leaves that retain their color through winter. Ex- cellent in groupings and massings. It is a slow-growing shrub that eventually matures to 4-5’ tall. (1) Lilac ‘Palibin’ (Syringa meyeri ‘Palibin’) - A dwarf, spreading lilac with reddish-purple buds opening to pale lilac fragrant flowers. Blooms profusely in mid-season, typically mid-May and first flowers at an early age. It is a com- pact, rounded, slow-growing, deciduous shrub that matures to 5-8’ tall. (8) Goldflame spirea (Spiraea x bumalda x ‘Goldflame’) - Dense, upright mounded shrub features attractive bronze-tinged new growth in spring, maturing to soft yellow-green. Fall foliage color is brilliant coppery-orange. Provides wonderful contrast in shrub borders. Good heat tolerance. (11) Goldmound spirea (Spiraea japonica ‘Goldmound’) - Vibrant golden spring foliage, accented by clusters of pink flowers, cools to a yellowish green in summer then a rich, yellowish orange in fall. Great color addition to the shrub or perennial border or for brightening the container garden. (10) Pieris (Pieris japonica) - This neat, rounded shrub has given rise to many noteworthy cultivars. It grows to 6+ feet tall, producing drooping clusters of delicate white blossoms in winter and spring. Use this shrub in a woodland garden, shade garden, or as a foundation plant. SMALL/MEDIUM TREES - containerized 25 gal. or B&B min cal. 2.5” (1) Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) - Each spring, flowering dogwoods display showy white and pink flow- er-like bracts, which are actually modified leaves. Dogwood flowers are the small yellow-green clusters at the cen- ter of the bracts. Flowering dogwoods are showy in the month of May in Upstate NY. (3) Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) - Northern spicebush is a single- or few-stemmed, deciduous shrub with glossy leaves and graceful, slender, light green branches. Dense clusters of tiny, pale yellow flowers bloom before the leaves from globose buds along the twigs. Flowers occur in umbel-like clusters and are followed by glossy red fruit. Both the fruit and foliage are aromatic. Leaves turn a colorful golden-yellow in fall. (2) Higan Weeping Cherry (Prunus subhirtella var. pendula) - Higan weeping cherry a medium-sized tree noted for its showy early spring blooms, rapid growth, and strongly weeping habit to the ground. The upper arching branches of Weeping Higan Cherry become mounding with age. LARGE TREES - containerized 45 gal. or B&B min cal. 3” (4) Red Oak (Quercus rubra) - A stately tree, it becomes quite massive and its lower branches are apt to extend far out laterally, parallel to the ground. Trees have beautiful fall foliage colors of bronze and red. (1) Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) - Arborvitae is the perfect tree for you if you’re looking for an easy to maintain, versatile, native evergreen. Whether you want an accent tree, natural privacy fence or a simple and easy tree for your yard, the Arborvitae is a great choice. (2) Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) - While commercially planted for its delicious syrup and value as lumber, this tree makes a great addition to any yard or park. And one of its most prominent features is amazing fall color. As the seasons change, the leaves turn vibrant shades of yellow, burnt orange and red. (1) Catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) - White, showy flowers and giant heart-shaped leaves, dangling bean-like seed pods and twisting trunk and branches make this hardy tree catch the eye of onlookers. (1) Red Horsechestnut (Aesculus x carnea ‘Briotii’) - The red horse-chestnut, a cross between horse-chestnut and red buckeye, is an excellent shade tree for large areas. Its distinctive, rose-red, cone-shaped flower clusters bloom in May among the lustrous dark green leaves. (4) Norway Spruce (Picea abies) - Norway spruce is a large, pyramidal tree with long, cylindrical cones that hang like ornaments from the weeping branches against the dark green foliage. This sun-loving, 50- to 80-foot-high tree is often used as windbreaks, screens, or hedges in large-scale landscapes. L.02 PLANT LIST, DETAILS & SPECS NA DECEMBER 15, 2017 JANUARY 16, 2018 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REVISED: 12/15/17 PROPOSED SITE PLAN REVISED: 1/16/18 1.03 GARBAGE A R E A P A D & ENCLOSUR E , B U I L T USING EXIST . S H E D RETAINING WALL EXAMPLE 1/16/18 STONE BLOCK 1/16/18 REVISED:1/16/18 REVISED: 1/16/18 REVISED:1/16/18 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Major Subdivision & Two Duplexes Improvements Declaration of Lead Agency 209 Hudson St Site Plan Review/Subdivision Review/Area Variances City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board January 23, 2018 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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a subdivision and two duplexes to be located at 209 Hudson St, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to subdivide the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17 measuring 26,484 SF (.608 acres) into three lots; Lot 1 measuring 5,820 SF (.34 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St and containing the existing house; Lot 2 measuring 5,942 SF (.136 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St; and Lot 3 measuring 14,708 SF (.338 acres) with 42’ of frontage on Hudson St. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District which has the following minimum area requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 45’ of street frontage for single or two family dwellings, 30% lot coverage, 25’ front yard, 10’ side yard, and a rear yard of 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’. The applicant proposes to retain the existing house on one lot, and to build two new duplexes- one on each of the remaining two lots. Access to all three sites will be from the existing driveway – which will require easements to ensure permanent access. The project includes 6 parking spaces, retaining/stone walls, new paving, walkways and landscaping. Site development will require the removal of an existing pool, wooden fence and shed, eleven mature trees and associated paving and landscape elements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District for which area variances are required for an existing side yard deficiency on Lot 1 and a newly created street frontage deficiency for Lot 2. The project is also in the South Hill Overlay District for which subdivision is required as district requirement allow no more than one primary use per tax parcel, and WHEREAS: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a major subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Major Subdivision ― Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of two or more additional buildable lots, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, is by way of this resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: One Page 1 of 3 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - Part III Project Name: Major Subdivision & Two Duplexes – 209 Hudson St Date Created: 1/2/18 Updated 1/17/18 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into three lots, retain the existing house on one lot, and to build two new duplexes- one on each of the remaining two lots. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel 82.-4-17 measuring 26,484 SF (.608 acres) into three lots: Lot 1 measuring 5,820 SF (.34 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St and containing the existing house; Lot 2 measuring 5,942 SF (.136 acres) with 45’ of frontage on Hudson St; and Lot 3 measuring 14,708 SF (.338 acres) with 42’ of frontage on Hudson St. Access to all three parcels will be from the existing driveway and will require easements to ensure permanent access. The project also includes 6 total parking spaces, retaining/stone walls, new paving, walkways and landscaping. Site development will require the removal of an existing pool, wooden fence and shed, eleven mature trees and associated paving and landscape elements. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District which has the following minimum area requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 45’ of street frontage for single or two family dwellings, 30% lot coverage, 25’ front yard, 10’ side yard, and a rear yard of 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’. The subdivision requires area variances for an existing side yard deficiency on Lot 1 and a newly created street frontage deficiency for Lot 2. The project is also in the South Hill Overlay District for which subdivision is required as district requirement allow no more than one primary use per tax parcel. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to environmental review IMPACT ON LAND No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON WATER No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON DRAINAGE No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON AIR No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Eleven mature trees will be removed as a result of site development. The applicant should provide a list of the trees slated for removal, including their species, dbh and condition. The proposed planting plan includes only two ornamental trees in addition to other plantings. The applicant intends to submit a revised landscaping plan. The rear of the property is wooded and will not be disturbed. Page 2 of 3 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The requested area variance for the proposed Lot 2 is not large; as drawn, the applicant is proposing a lot with 42 feet of street frontage as opposed to the required 45’. However, 42 feet of frontage is achieved by creating and oddly-shaped parcel that is not characteristic of an urban residential neighborhood, and does not allow for a building to have a presence on the street. The result is functionally a ‘flag lot’ - shaped such that the buildable portion of the site is at the rear of the property and behind the proposed Lots 1 & 2. See Impact on Plants and Animals. IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON ENERGY The applicant has provided the following information regarding energy use: No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH No significant impacts are anticipated. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUMITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project is in the R-2a Zoning District which has the following minimum area requirements: 5,000 SF lot size and 45’ of street frontage for single or two family dwellings, 30% lot coverage, 25’ front yard, 10’ side yard, and a rear yard of 25% or 50’ but not less than 20’. The subdivision requires area variances for an existing side yard deficiency on Lot 1 and a newly created street frontage deficiency for Lot 2. The project is also in the South Hill Overlay District for which subdivision is required as district requirement allow no more than one primary use per tax parcel. The requested area variance for the proposed Lot 2 is not large; as drawn, the applicant is proposing a lot with 42 feet of street frontage as opposed to the required 45’. Howev er, 42 feet of frontage is achieved by creating and oddly-shaped parcel that is not characteristic of an urban residential neighborhood, and does not allow for a building to have a presence on the street. The result is Page 3 of 3 functionally a ‘flag lot’ - shaped such that the buildable portion of the site is at the rear of the property and behind the proposed Lots 1 & 2. The Lead Agency has identified the following mitigations to this impact:  The buildings are designed to be compatible/contextual with other structures in the neighborhood.  The quality of materials is relatively high. Exterior finishes and site details include cementitious siding, wood trim and porches, architectural roof shingles and a stone wall.  The spacing and massing of the new and proposed house facing Hudson St reflect a typical traditional South Hill residential character.  The rear building will be less visible from the street as it is lower than the street facing buildings and is screened by evergreen vegetation. The Planning Board will work with the applicant during site plan review to explore potential changes to the site layout and floorplans to make the project attractive to broad demographic including families. No significant impacts are anticipated. Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP 111-115 The Knoll tree removal Kate Krueger [kate@streamcolab.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:15 PM To: Lisa Nicholas Cc: Noah Demarest [noah@streamcolab.com] Attachments:2015053 - The Knoll - L100~1.pdf (423 KB) ; NEcorner-tree.jpeg (4 MB) Hello Lisa, We've had an arborist visit the site at 111-115 and I wanted to share with you an update that may be noted in site plan review on the 23rd. He examined the line of trees the we are proposing to remove between the exg properties and noted that they were all topped at some point in their life, which can weaken their structural integrity. Also, we realized that another tree at the NE corner of the garage will need to be removed in order to build the addition. It's quite close to the existing building and has already been extensively limbed. I've attached an updated site demo plan and a photo of the tree. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me at this time, otherwise I'll see you on the 23rd! Thanks, Kate KATE KRUEGER Project Manager STREAM COLLABORATIVE architecture + landscape architecture dpc office: 607.216.8802 x709 www.streamcolab.com Virus-free. www.avast.com S 7 9 °4 7 '0 4 " E 4 8 .5 0 'N 55°46'25" E36.63'S 8 9 °1 2 '0 4 " E 8 7 .7 0 'S 02°10'56" W 21.30'S 8 5 °5 2 '5 4 " E 5 3 .0 0 'N 63°50'19" E 27.50'S 73°27'23" E96.40' 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 6 " S P R U C E 1 8 " S P R U C E 1 8 " S P R U C E 8 " S P R U C E S H E D W O OD F E NC E STONE WALK 1 1 .0 '±2'±R I M =7 0 7 .5 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LOOPDRIVE) STREETLINE SHARED INCOMMONSEE R.O.W.AGREEMENT 440/869 2 0 ' W I D E R /W F O R I N G R E S S & E G R E S S T O B U I L D I N G N O .1 1 9 N OT C U R R E N T L Y I N U S E R=20' 1 6 ' W I D E R /W F O R I N G R E S S & E G R E S S T O B U I L D I N G N O .1 1 9 N OT C U R R E N T L Y I N U S E 4 '12'355'± TO BARTONPLACE(PERDEED) ASPHALT DRIVE STREETLINE STREETLINE 2 5 .9 '64.6'11.6'CH=S 17°48'21" W138.59'CH=N 68°55'08" W100.40'APPROXIMATELOCATIONFORMER 30'WIDERAILWAYR.O.W.THE KNOLLSTEWART AVENUETHURSTON AVENUE T I T L E I N F O R M A T I O N N o . 1 1 5 T H E K N O L L C H E S T E R T O N H O U S E , L L C . I N S T . N O .2 0 1 4 -0 5 6 5 5 T A X M A P N O .7 -4 -9 A R E A =0 .7 4 9 A C R E S T O S T R E E T L I N E 2 0 1 7 -0 9 5 5 6KWT P A R T N E R S L L C (R .O .) P H I D E L T A S I G M A , I N C . (R .O .) C I T Y O F I T H A C A (R .O .) C I T Y O F I T H A C A (R .O .) A B R U N A (R .O .) 8 4 8 /2 3 1 2 0 1 3 -1 3 3 8 0SOLUTIONS L L C (R .O .) S O U T H H I L L L I V I N G 2 0 1 2 -1 2 2 1 1 L O W E R (R .O .)S 26°08'38" W112.29'N 8 0 °0 4 '5 4 " W 2 9 1 .3 7 'N 01°10'12" E80.27'N 26°35'56" E41.00'N 72°54'52" W24.64'N 18°01'25" E 29.00'N 2 2 °0 1 '5 0 " E 7 .0 0 ' N 5 5 °4 7 '4 8 " W 7 .0 0 'N 08°32'25" E 51.40'N 43°43'04" W 12.60'N 08°32'25" E 47.90'N 58°28'34" W 74.48'S 34°28'36" W69.24'N 67°32'00" W51.49'N 8 8 °2 4 '0 1 " W 7 1 .3 9 'S 01°02'23" E 31.21' N 8 2 °1 2 '5 7 " W 4 3 .9 6 ' S 0 7 °4 7 '0 3 " W 1 0 .0 0 ' S 8 2 °1 2 '5 7 " E 4 5 .8 8 'S 3 0 ° 1 5'3 6 " E 3 0.0 0' MEAS. 100.5'± ALONG OLD RAILWAY R.O.W.MEAS. 142'± ALONG OLD RAILWAYR.O.W.T B M A R R O W H E A D H Y D R A N T =7 1 0 .6 R I M =7 0 7 .8 GRAVELDRIVECONCRETEWALK C O N C . S T E P S C O N C R E T E WA L K S H E D A S P H A L T P A R K I N G G A R A G E B U I L D I N G N O .1 1 5 1_2 ASPHALTPARKINGASPHALTDRIVE H O U S ENo. 1 1 5 H O U S ENo. 1 1 1 G A R A G E CONCRETEC O N C . W A L L EDGE OFGRAVELEDGE OFGRAVELCONCRETEWALKCONC.WALLCONCRETEWALKR E M A I N S O F C O N C R E T E S T E P S W I N D O W W E L L CONC.EDGE OFPAVEMENTEDGE OFPAVEMENTEDGE OFPAVEMENTA S P H A L T P A R K I N G EDGE OFPAVEMENT EDGE OFPAVEMENTSTONEWALL R E M A I N S O F W O O D S T E P S R E M A I N S O F C O N C R E T E S T E P S G A R A G E CURBFACE W I N D O W W E L L STONEWALKS T O N E P A T I O CONC.WALLWOODFENCEDECKDECKCONCRETEMAGNETIC1983 28" 3 6 " 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " M A P L E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 2 " S P R U C E 1 4 " C E D A R 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " M A P L E 1 4 " S P R U C E 1 6 " 1 6 " M A P L E 1 6 " M A P L E 1 6 " M A P L E 1 6 " M A P L E 1 6 " M A P L E 1 6 " M A P L E 1 6 " P I N E 1 6 " P I N E 1 6 " P I N E 1 8 " M A P L E 8 " 8 " M A P L E 8 " M A P L E S A P L I N G S A P L I N G S A P L I N G 2 4 " W A L N U T 4 0 " W A L N U T 4 0 " 4 0 " E .E .=7 0 8 .4 E .E .=7 1 2 .6 E .E .=7 1 2 .6 E .E .=7 1 2 .6 S L A B E L E V =7 1 2 .0 E .E .=7 1 2 .5 DEMO PORTION OF PLANTING ISLAND DEMO EXISTING TREES 111 THE KNOLL 115 THE KNOLL 115 1/2 THE KNOLL DEMO SHED DEMO SIDEWALK DEMO SHRUBS AND FENCE DEMO ASPHALT REMOVE ASPHALT REMOVE PROPERTY LINES STONE PATIO STONE PILLAR TO REMAIN DEMO EXG TREE Project # Date PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTREAM Collaborative architecture + landscape architecture dpc 108 W. State St. Fl 2 Ithaca, New York 14850 ph: 607.216.8802 www.streamcolab.com A 1 2 3 4 BCD 1" = 20'-0"1/16/2018 4:56:29 PMC:\Users\Kate\Documents\2015053 - The Knoll - SITE1_kate7RJ32.rvtL100 SITE DEMO PLAN 2015053111 - 115 THE KNOLL01/05/2018Sophia House, Chesterton House Inc.CITY OF ITHACAESTIMATE SET 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE DEMO PLAN NORTH 0 10 20 40 REVISIONS Δ DESCRIPTION DATE PROPOSED RESOLUTION Chesterton House Building Addition & Landscape Improvements Preliminary & Final Approval 111-115 The Knoll Site Plan Review City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board January 23, 2018 WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a building addition and landscape improvements at 111-115 The Knoll by Karl Johnson for Chesterton House Inc., and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to expand and convert a single family home into a congregate living facility for up to 16 individuals. The expansion will involve the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two-story addition containing 4 bedrooms. Site modifications include expansion of the existing parking area to connect it to the parking area on the adjacent 115 The Knoll and the installation of walkways, a terrace and patio, bike racks and lighting. Site development will include the removal of eleven mature trees. The project requires the consolidation of 115 & 111 the Knoll. The project is in the R-U Zoning district and the Cornell Heights Historic District and has received ILPC review and approval, and WHEREAS: because the project is within the Cornell Heights Historic District, it is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-1 B. (h)[4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4(b)(11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on December 19, 2017 declared itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required Public Hearing on December 19, 2017, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any received comments have been considered, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on December 19, 2017 reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Part 2 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Boundary and Topographic Map No. 111-115 The Knoll, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” dated 11/1/17 and prepared by Darren A Brock L.S., “Site Demo Plan (L100)”, “Layout Plan (L101)”, “Planting Plan (L102)” and “Elevations (A201 & A202), dated 11/14/17 and prepared by Stream Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on December 19, 2017 determine that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and did issue a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does herby grant preliminary & final Site plan approval to the project subject to the following conditions: Insert Any Conditions of the Approval Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: One Stewart Park Playground: Site Plan Review Notes January 16, 2018  NEW DRAWINGS & INFORMATION 1. Context Drawing 2. Revised C103 – Layout (Bathroom/Pavilion shifted to witing 150’ of road) 3 to 6. Bathroom/Pavilion Illustrations & Floor Plan  PLAN UPDATES TO BE MADE BASED UPON FIRE AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & PDC COMMITTEE REVIEW (NOTE:THAT PLAN UPDATES WILL ALSO INCLUDE ITEMS DISCUSSED AT JAN 23 BOARD MEETING)  Ensure stable parking or lawn access to Carousel (now that a cover is being added).  Where curb extensions are being added for future trail crossing, create a raised crosswalk for pedestrian safety, better visibility and traffic calming effect.  Add Bicycle Parking near proposed trail crossing.  Add ‘mid-block’ crossing(s) with tree planting along north south parking area between splash pad and Tea Pavilion.  Modify tree protection detail as per City Forester recommendations and review impact of proposed equipment and pathways on existing park trees.  Adjust design of kiosk to match design of historic Water Tower as per PDC comments plan review. This can be achieved by beveling the outside corner of the posts to suggest the historic angle of the water tower.  Consider vegetated swales for stormwater treatment as per Planning Board sketch plan review.  Add striping to parking lot on both sides of the roadway west of playground.  Highlight the diamond pattern on benches with color when repainting benches.  Fence along Waterfront Trail extension to match carousel fence (same color and design, but 3’ high.  Provide more consistency in metal colors – use black metal posts where possible to match fencing for instance on shade structures and carousel cover.  Provide elevations of proposed bathroom/pavilion structure (sketchup plans provided with this submission).  Specify and use a consistent boulder material.  Provide samples of playground safety surfacing.  Provide berm cross sections.  Provide a water fountain that can become the Stewart Park standard. Explore what others have been used in Cass or other park locations.  DISCUSSION OF SUGGESTED $75,000 ANNUAL COST FOR PLAYGROUND MAINTENANCE & FEES The Board of Public Works and City staff have learned that gifts to the city and new facilities can add to the operating costs and maintenance costs. While not easy to raise capital funds, it is generally considered easier to raise funds to build new facilities that to allocate additional funds that may be needed to maintain new facilities. It has been suggested by city staff that the Board of Public Works would not accept the new playground gift without a commitment to an additional $75,000 in annual funding. We anticipate that this discussion will be ongoing throughout January and February and that we will come to an agreement/understanding by the February Planning Board meeting so the that project can be approved and then ‘accepted’ by BPW in February or March. Some of the issues we will be exploring and questions to be asked include:  In FSP’s campaign materials, the playground is described as ‘new’. In fact we are helping the city in updating existing equipment that is out of date and does not meet current safety or accessibility codes. So, we should carefully question the assumption that this is a new facility requiring additional maintenance.  A carousel cover is included in SPR and FSP Campaign as requested by DPW. This will reduce seasonal maintenance costs.  New playground equipment and splash pad will be under warrantee. Warrantee specifics will be provided for February Parks Commission and Board of Public Works meetings. At least in the short term, maintenance for this new facility should be minimal. As discussed in the City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan Draft, maintenance budgets should be higher for Stewart Park, which is a regional park used by city and county residents and visitors. (Note that FSP believes the existing park maintenance staff does an excellent job with minimal resources). If FSP was to support increased park maintenance staff, we would want to supplement our own staff, looking at the DIA model of ‘ambassadors’, perhaps park rangers. It would be much easier and less expensive for FSP to raise funds for FSP rather than for City staffing.  Does the city currently charge residential rates for water use at the existing splash pad? And will it charge residential or commercial rates for its own water and sanitary sewer service? Does this happen on the Commons? How is this decision made and who makes this decision – BPW, Common Council?  Water use estimates will be updated in February as designs are finalized for discussion by various city committees and boards.  The new Playground Pavilion can generate considerable revenues for the City. Of course it will also require administrative and maintenance time. PROPOSED PLAYGROUND FUTURE HISTORIC PATHMEMORIAL FLAGPOLE GARDEN HISTORIC PARK PAVILIONS TEA PAVILION CAYUGA LAKE PIER WATERFRONT T R A I L TENNIS COURTS LAGOON RENWICK WILDWOOD/ FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY NEWMAN MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE LIGHTHOUSE WOODS F A L L C R E E K WATERFRONT TRAIL CASCADILLA BOATHOUSE ITHACA YOUTH BUREAU CHAMBER/ VISITOR CENTER PROPOSED PLAYGROUND 2012 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SCALE: 1” = 200’ +/- 1932 PHOTOGRAPH NOT TO SCALE STEWART PARK PLAYGROUND Context Plan PROPOSED RESOLUTION Stewart Park Inclusive Playground Declaration of Lead Agency Stewart Park Site Plan Review City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board January 23, 2018 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: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for installation of a new playground at Stewart Park by Rick Manning for the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS: The applicant is proposing to construct a new accessible playground with a splash pad, separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an accessible berm with a pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding pieces of play equipment, a new structure that will contain a covered picnic pavilion, two accessible bathrooms and storage/office space, and accessible paths linking the playground to other areas of the park. The project also includes installing a permanent structure to cover the carousel, reorganization of the adjacent parking area to add 35 spaces, new plantings, signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The project is in Stewart Park and the P-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS: This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review. WHEREAS: it has been requested that the Dormitory Authority of New Your State (DASNY), the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, and Common Council, all potentially involved agencies, consent to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, and WHEREAS: DASNY, the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works, and the City of Ithaca Common Council, have consented to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this project, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, is by way of this resolution declaring itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project. Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: One Page 1 of 4 City of Ithaca FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - Part III Project Name: Stewart Park Inclusive Playground Date Created: 12/5/17 Updated 1/17/18 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves the construction of a new accessible playground with a splash pad, separate play structures for pre-school and school-aged children, an accessible berm with pathway and overlook, two play gardens, several freestanding pieces of play equipment, a new structure that will contain a covered picnic pavilion, two accessible bathrooms and storage/office space and accessible paths linking the playground to other areas of the park. The project also includes installing a permanent structure to cover the carousel, reorganization of the adjacent parking area to add 35 spaces, new plantings, signage, furnishings and other site improvements. The project is in Stewart Park and the P-1 Zoning District. This has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(h)[2]and (5) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(10) and is subject to environmental review. IMPACT ON LAND No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON WATER The project is in Stewart Park, which is contiguous to Fall Creek and Cayuga Lake. The project site is flat therefore erosion during construction will not be a major concern. The applicant has submitted a drawing titled “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C102)’ dated 11/15/17 and prepared by TG Miller PC that shows a stabilized construction entrance, silt fencing, inlet protection and tree protection. The plan will be reviewed by the City Stormwater Officer for conformance with city stormwater regulation. No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON DRAINAGE The applicant has submitted the following information regarding stormwater: The limit of disturbance for the project will be approximately 1.65 acres. A site disturbance of more than 1. 0 acres requires the preparation of a "Full" Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Storm water Management Officer (SMO) prior to the issuance of a building permit. A Full SWPPP requires controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction and the installation of permanent storm water controls to reduce the rate of runoff and provide water quality treatment. However, there are two exemptions listed in the SPDES General Permit that apply to this project.  Table 1 in Appendix "B" of the General Permit states that sidewalk construction projects, that are not part of a road/highway construction project, only need to provide erosion and sediment controls. This exemption will be applied to the pathways included in the project.  Sections 2.a.iii-v of the General Permit state that a project site that discharges directly to a fifth order or larger stream (Fall Creek and Cayuga Lake are fifth order Page 2 of 4 streams) is exempt from reducing rates of runoff from the 10- and 1 00-year storm events. This exemption will be used for the balance of the project. A Full SWPPP will be prepared, taking the above exemptions into account. These exemptions will eliminate the need for permanent stormwater controls to reduce the rates of runoff and limit the need for permanent stormwater controls to provide water quality treatment. Stormwater planters will be installed to provide water quality treatment from the pavilion roof. No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON AIR No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Project development will require the removal of one large crabapple tree and several mature tall shrubs. A Landscape plan has not been submitted. All other exiting trees within or proximate to the construction zone will be protected. The applicant has submitted drawings titled “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (C102)” and “Details (C201)” both dated 11/15/17 and prepared by TG Miller PC drawings showing trees to be protected and the type of protection that will be used. The Lead Agency notes the following two issues with the proposed tree protection that should be addressed:  Tree protection should not be made of construction fencing. It should be made of wood or another hard material.  To the extent possible, groups of trees should be protected with one structure to prevent compaction or should extend to the dripline – particularly if construction machinery will be used near them. IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES The project will be visible to users of Stewart Park and its shoreline and Fuertes Bird Sanctuary (UNA 100). No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES The project is within the same 177 acre property as the Cascadilla Boat House which his listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is approximately 1,000 feet from the structure. Portions of the project may be visible from the boathouse and construction activities will not affect it. No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AREA The project is within the 177 acre Stewart Park and will be an enhancement to the existing playground and provide additional amenities to its users. No impact is anticipated. Page 3 of 4 IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS The project is near UNA 100 – Stewart Park Woods (Fuertes Bird Sanctuary) and will be visible from some points along its the northern edge. Construction activities will not impact the natural area. No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON ENERGY No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH No impact is anticipated. IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUMITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD The project is an expansion of city facilities and as such, will potential require additional staff and financial resources. The applicant has provided the following information regarding this issue: The Board of Public Works and City staff have learned that gifts to the city and new facilities can add to the operating costs and maintenance costs. While not easy to raise capital funds, it is generally considered easier to raise funds to build new facilities that to allocate additional funds that may be needed to maintain new facilities. It has been suggested by city staff that the Board of Public Works would not accept the new playground gift without a commitment to an additional $75,000 in annual funding. We anticipate that this discussion will be ongoing throughout January and February and that we will come to an agreement/understanding by the February Planning Board meeting so that the project can be approved and then ‘accepted’ by BPW in February or March. Some of the issues we will be exploring and questions to be asked include:  In FSP’s campaign materials, the playground is described as ‘new’. In fact we are helping the city in updating existing equipment that is out of date and does not meet current safety or accessibility codes. So, we should carefully question the assumption that this is a new facility requiring additional maintenance.  A carousel cover is included in SPR and FSP Campaign as requested by DPW. This will reduce seasonal maintenance costs.  New playground equipment and splash pad will be under warrantee. Warrantee specifics will be provided for February Parks Commission and Board of Public Works meetings. At least in the short term, maintenance for this new facility should be minimal. As discussed in the City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan Draft, maintenance budgets should be higher for Stewart Park, which is a regional park used by city and county residents and visitors. (Note that FSP believes the existing park maintenance staff does an excellent job with minimal resources). If FSP was to support increased park maintenance staff, we would want to supplement our own staff, looking at the DIA model of ‘ambassadors’, Page 4 of 4 perhaps park rangers. It would be much easier and less expensive for FSP to raise funds for FSP rather than for City staffing.  Does the city currently charge residential rates for water use at the existing splash pad? And will it charge residential or commercial rates for its own water and sanitary sewer service? Does this happen on the Commons? How is this decision made and who makes this decision – BPW, Common Council?  Water use estimates will be updated in February as designs are finalized for discussion by various city committees and boards.  The new Playground Pavilion can generate considerable revenues for the City. Of course it will also require administrative and maintenance time. No impact is anticipated. Prepared by: Lisa Nicholas, AICP