HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1991-05-07•
1,
r
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MAY 71 1991
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Tuesday, May 7, 1991, at The Women's
Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :00
met in regular session on
Community Building, 100 West
p.m.'
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia
Langhans, Eva Hoffmann, Stephen Smith, Judith Aronson, James
Baker, George Frantz (Acting Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town
Engineer), John C. Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Richard B. Fischer, Maura Howe (WSKG Radio), Karen
Baum, Margery and Frank Shipe, S. Vrana, G.C. Kugler, Dave
Auble, Stephen Emlen, Bruce Ridley, K. Waldron, Paul
Hartman, Shirley Egan, Albert Wright, John C. Gutenberger,
Betsy Darlington, Barbara Keeton, Cindy Sherman, Judith W.
Jones, Harriet Becker, Greg Williams (WHCU Radio), Gina
Fernandez, Gerhard Jirka, David J. Kuckuk, William W.
Goldsmith, Mario Giannella, D.B. Brittain, Bruce Brittain,
Candace E. Cornell, Monique Djokic Stark, Lars Washburn,
Dooley Kiefer, Chuck Jankey, Margaret Thomas, Peggy
Walbridge, Joel Gagnon, Ethel Beck, Nancy Trautmann, Charles
Trautmann, Richard and Karen Reisinger, Helen R. Lorenzen,
Bruce Turnbull, Erma Sacchi, Sarah Sacchi, Dorothy
Laubengayer, Marvin Pritts, Natalie Emlen, Shirley
Raffensperger, Larry Fabbroni, Sandy Tallant, Lewis Roscoe,
Stuart Mesinger, Ronald Brand, David Stroud, Chuck Jankey,
Mr. McPherson, Walter J. Wiggins,
Chairperson
Grigorov declared the meeting, duly opened at
7:00
p.m. and accepted
for'the record
the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting
and
Publication of
the Notice of
Public Hearings in Town Hall and
the
Ithaca Journal
on April 29, 1991,
and May 2, 1991, respectively,
together with
the Secretary's
Affidavit of Service by Mail of
said
Notice upon the
various neighbors
of each of the properties under
discussion,
as appropriate,
upon the NYS Department
of
Transportation,
upon the Manager
of the Finger Lakes Region of
the
NYS Office of
Parks, Recreation,
and Historic Preservation, upon
the
Tompkins County
Highway Department,
upon the Clerk of the City
of
Ithaca, upon
the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, and
upon
the
applicants
and
/or agents, as
appropriate, on April 29, 19910
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (G /EIS).
• **
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted
matter 7 :10 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above.
** The following items attached hereto as Exhibit A.
1. Proposed Draft Scope
2. Amendment to proposed Scope of Issues and outline for the D /GEIS
3. Town Board Resolution
4. What is a G /EIS
] yPlanning Board -2- May 7, 1991
r
•
Town Engineer Daniel Walker
present with introductory remarks
Orchards Area Plan.
addressed the Board and the public
regarding the GEIS process for the
Mr. Walker stated that at the March 19, 1991 Planning Board
Meeting Cornell University introduced the Campus Plan which included,
primarily, an area of development called the "Orchards ". Mr. Walker
said that because development in the East Hill area has been an area
of concern by the Town for many years -- the concerns are traffic,
protection of important environmental resources, and the cumulative
effects of individual projects that have been developed over the
years. Mr. Walker felt that an overall environmental analysis of the
area was important. Mr. Walker said that the Town Planning Board has
been concerned that the environmental review of individual projects
did not adequately address the long -term cumulative effects of these
projects, and, since Cornell is the principal landowner and developer
in the East Hill area, development of a Comprehensive Plan by Cornell
and a coordinated environmental review by the Town Planning Board was
felt to be very important. Mr. Walker stated that it is nice that
the Cornell planning process is occuring at the same time as the Town
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan is in process, which allows combined
efforts in a number of areas.
Mr. Walker said that the Town Planning Board has asked Cornell to
develop the G /EIS for the Master Plan, and, as the project planning
has developed, Cornell has requested.a zoning change for the Orchards
area, this request is the action that is triggering the G /EIS.
Continuing, Mr. 'Walker offered a brief explanation of the G /EIS
process. Mr. Walker said that a G /EIS is used to assess the
environmental effects of a number of separate actions within a
geographic area, or an entire program or plan having a wide
application and impacting future land use policies and decisions,
adding that it is also a document that sets forth specific conditions
and criteria under which individual development projects will be
reviewed. Mr. Walker'stated that after a final G /EIS is accepted by
the Lead Agency in this case the Lead Agency will be the Planning
Board, individual projects will still require site plan approval by
the Planning Board, but SEQR compliance will have been met as long as
all conditions that were developed under the G /EIS are met in the
individual site plans. Mr. Walker stated that there will be
conditions and thresholds adopted during this process of the final
G /EIS. Mr. Walker said that, if, for some reason in the review
process there is an area that has not been adequately addressed in
the G /EIS, a supplemental review of the environmental aspects would
be performed. Mr. Walker commented that the G /EIS is very
appropriate for development plans and zoning that may result in
significant changes to existing land use patterns, especially if the
Town does not know what all the individual projects are up front.
Mr. Walker said that the G /EIS process is an interactive process
between the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Cornell University,
Mr. Walker stated that once the scope of the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement is approved by the Planning Board, preparation of
the technical information required by the scope will be done by
•
r
•
Town Engineer Daniel Walker
present with introductory remarks
Orchards Area Plan.
addressed the Board and the public
regarding the GEIS process for the
Mr. Walker stated that at the March 19, 1991 Planning Board
Meeting Cornell University introduced the Campus Plan which included,
primarily, an area of development called the "Orchards ". Mr. Walker
said that because development in the East Hill area has been an area
of concern by the Town for many years -- the concerns are traffic,
protection of important environmental resources, and the cumulative
effects of individual projects that have been developed over the
years. Mr. Walker felt that an overall environmental analysis of the
area was important. Mr. Walker said that the Town Planning Board has
been concerned that the environmental review of individual projects
did not adequately address the long -term cumulative effects of these
projects, and, since Cornell is the principal landowner and developer
in the East Hill area, development of a Comprehensive Plan by Cornell
and a coordinated environmental review by the Town Planning Board was
felt to be very important. Mr. Walker stated that it is nice that
the Cornell planning process is occuring at the same time as the Town
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan is in process, which allows combined
efforts in a number of areas.
Mr. Walker said that the Town Planning Board has asked Cornell to
develop the G /EIS for the Master Plan, and, as the project planning
has developed, Cornell has requested.a zoning change for the Orchards
area, this request is the action that is triggering the G /EIS.
Continuing, Mr. 'Walker offered a brief explanation of the G /EIS
process. Mr. Walker said that a G /EIS is used to assess the
environmental effects of a number of separate actions within a
geographic area, or an entire program or plan having a wide
application and impacting future land use policies and decisions,
adding that it is also a document that sets forth specific conditions
and criteria under which individual development projects will be
reviewed. Mr. Walker'stated that after a final G /EIS is accepted by
the Lead Agency in this case the Lead Agency will be the Planning
Board, individual projects will still require site plan approval by
the Planning Board, but SEQR compliance will have been met as long as
all conditions that were developed under the G /EIS are met in the
individual site plans. Mr. Walker stated that there will be
conditions and thresholds adopted during this process of the final
G /EIS. Mr. Walker said that, if, for some reason in the review
process there is an area that has not been adequately addressed in
the G /EIS, a supplemental review of the environmental aspects would
be performed. Mr. Walker commented that the G /EIS is very
appropriate for development plans and zoning that may result in
significant changes to existing land use patterns, especially if the
Town does not know what all the individual projects are up front.
Mr. Walker said that the G /EIS process is an interactive process
between the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Cornell University,
Mr. Walker stated that once the scope of the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement is approved by the Planning Board, preparation of
the technical information required by the scope will be done by
r
a
1 0
Planning Board
-3-
May 7, 1991
Cornell and its consultants in cooperation with the Town planning
Staff, Engineering staff, and the Town Planning Board. Mr. Walker
said that the Draft G /EIS will be developed and then a process of
review and comment will take place, with all involved and interested
agencies, and the general public, adding that comments from the
parties will be evaluated and the Planning Board as Lead Agency will
then have them incorporated into a final G /EIS. Mr. Walker noted
that it is anticipated that this process will take somewhere between
six and twelve months. Scoping of a G /EIS does not have to be a
public process, but because the Planning Board is very concerned
about input from the public, the Town had set up tonight's meeting to
start off a review of the Draft Scope that has been provided by
Cornell University. Mr. Walker noted that this meeting tonight is
the public's first opportunity to provide public input. Mr. Walker
said that during the process there will be several opportunities for
review by the public, and other agencies. Mr. Walker commented that
if anyone has any extended written comments to submit they should
submit them to the Planning Board, Town of Ithaca Planning
Department, prior to the May 21, 1991 Planning Board Meeting, during
which the actual scoping process will take place.
At this point, Mr. Walker introduced members of the staff and
consultants from Cornell: Sandy Tallant (Project Coordinator), Lewis
Roscoe (Campus Planner), John Gutenberger (Asst. Dir. of Community
Relations), Stu Mesinger (General Planning Consultant), Dave Stroud
(Traffic Planning Consultant).
Mr. Walker introduced Ronald Brand, Town of Ithaca Planning
Consultant for the Comprehensive Plan,
Chairperson Grigorov noted that, as Mr. Walker had mentioned, one
of the purposes of any environmental impact statement is to involve
the public in the process.
At this time, Chairperson Grigorov opened the meeting for public
comment.
Mario Giannella, of 6 Dove Drive, addressed the Board and noted
that it was stated at last month's meeting all of the land in the
proposed rezoning area was endowed rather than statutory. Mr.
Giannella, referring to the map, stated that it looks like many of
the buildings have been shaded as statutory units. Mr. Giannella
wondered what is state and what is endowed. Chairperson Grigorov
said that Cornell did not ask for rezoning for the whole area that is
the study area. Mr. Giannella agreed, but noted that north of
Cascadilla Creek there are several buildings shaded as statutory.
Mr. Roscoe responded that the shaded area represents the area that
Cornell is asking to be rezoned, the land within that area is
generally owned by the endowed university, and many of the operations
in there are statutory operations. Mr. Roscoe said that there are
various agreements between the endowed university and the statutory
colleges, and if the statutory college builds a facility for this
operation that facility is owned by the State of New York and the
land under it is deeded over to the State. Mr. Giannella wondered if
r
•
I
TPlanning Board -4- May 7, 1991
he was right in assuming that only the area under the buildings is
state land, the surrounding area would still be endowed. Mr. Roscoe
replied that that was correct.
Natalie Emlen, of 45 Lone Oak Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that she represents the Ellis Hollow Planning and
Environmental Watch Committee. Ms. Emlen commented that the
committee has spent a lot of time going over the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Ms. Emlen stated that one of the things people in
Ellis Hollow believe is that there should be a very thorough
discussion of how much growth Cornell really anticipates it will need
in the next 20, 30, 50, years. Ms. Emlen said that the group does
not think the historical percentage of past growth is particularly
representative of what the future needs would be, and in particular,
given the shrinking resources for research and the state of the
national fiscal budget, the group thinks that the growth probably can
proceed at a smaller rate. Ms. Emlen stated that the people of Ellis
Hollow feel very strongly that any development plan needs to reserve
the essence of the things that the people in Ellis Hollow value most
about their lifestyle. These include. green spaces, rural
environment, pastoral commute to the Campus, the relative lack of
commercial development, and their own strong sense of community which
they want very much to see preserved as many of them truly value the
Cornell Orchard, Ms. Emlen noted that one of the concerns is about
the future commercial development at East Hill Plaza. Ms. Emlen
stated that many of the Ellis Hollow residents are actually very
disturbed at the moment with the state of affairs at the Plaza, such
as the deteriorating parking lot, and a number of other issues, as
more and more development is planned for that whole area around East
Hill Plaza. Ms. Emlen said that there are some concerns that the
Town may end up looking like parts of the Town of Lansing and they
are not interested; they would really like to preserve, again, a
small neighborhood type atmosphere. Ms. Emlen stated that in the
current scope the group does not think Cornell has really addressed
questions pertaining to its commercial development; the Draft Scope
tends to talk about the Orchards and the area south of the Orchards
as though the East Hill Plaza area is some forgotten stepchild and
the group would like to see that rectified. Ms. Emlen stated that
the people in Ellis Hollow are particularly concerned that a lot of
the lands that border on the parcels in question are lands in the
Town of Dryden, so when the scope is to address development or use of
farms or potential development on lands adjacent, the people are very
concerned that the projection also include the lands in the Town of
Dryden, and furthermore the group would like to see the Town of
Dryden Planning Board become an involved agency, they think that is
the best way to plan for growth out in the Town of Dryden, and
particularly to Ellis Hollow.
Continuing,
Ms.
Emlen stated
that Ellis
Hollow
residents are
very
concerned about
the
preservation
of green
spaces,
and they
also
believe that
the
creation of
new facilities
for bicycle
and
pedestrian traffic
would relieve some
of the
pressure
on vehicular
and parking pressure
at Cornell,
adding,
to that
end, the group
has
gone to considerable
work to draft
two proposals
of
their
own.
Ms.
TPlanning Board -5- May 7, 1991
Emlen stated that the group recognizes that these two proposals
incorporate lands not only in the Town of Ithaca, but also in the
Town of Dryden. Ms. Emlen said that their proposal is to the Town of
Ithaca, the Town of Dryden, and to Cornell University. Ms. Emlen
said that the first is to establish an Ellis Hollow bike and walkway
which will extend both ends of the current East Ithaca Recreation
Way; they would like to see a bike path that goes from Turkey Hill to
Game Farm along that creek, then takes the East Ithaca bikeway, takes
a branch off for easy access to the Campus and also one down toward
the main part of Ithaca. Ms. Emlen stated that the other proposal is
for the creation of what the group calls the Liberty Hyde Bailey
Greenbelt, which the group sees as protecting current green spaces
along Game Farm Road from Rte. 366, linking the Cornell Plantations
and Fall Creek, incorporating McGowan Woods to Cascadilla Creek; also
they would like to propose an extension of that greenbelt to go along
Game Farm Road, all the way to Ellis Hollow Road. Ms. Emlen
commented that the group felt it would be very fitting to honor
Liberty Hyde Bailey with the greenbelt. Ms. Emlen stated that the
group also urges the University to protect and recognize an important
element of its heritage, adding that they also propose that the
University protect in perpetuity 25 acres of the current Orchards as
a working orchard. Ms. Emlen offered that some members of the group
think it is possible that that Orchard could become part of the
landscape and /or maybe administered by Cornell Plantations. Finally,
Ms. Emlen mentioned the new Center for Environment at Cornell. (A
copy of Ms. Emlen's presentation is attached hereto as Exhibit #1.)
Marvin Pritts, of 5150 Cold Springs Road, Trumansburg, NY,
appeared before the Board and offered that he is a Professor at
Cornell and works at the Orchards. Mr. Pritts pointed out that he
liked the comments about the green space; he thought that preserving
the Orchards is really helping to maintain a green space at Cornell;
also it is a vital resource to the community in terms of it as an
educational resource for the public; a lot of garden clubs and
tourists come through there; he did not think a lot of Cornell people
realize there are over 3,000 elementary and junior high school
students that come through the Orchards every Fall. Mr. Pritts
stated that the Orchards also serves as a source of high quality
fruit for the people in the community. Mr. Pritts stated that there
are at least ten different departments that hold laboratories at the
Orchards every year, in addition to the classes in the Dept. of Fruit
and Vegetable Science, so it is used quite a bit as a teaching
facility. Mr. Pritts commented that it is also used by people
throughout the State of New York who visit, and also throughout the
world; visitors learn about the latest in fruit production. Mr.
Pritts commented that a lot of the resources going on at the Orchards
started a long time ago; some of the trees went in in the early
1900's, and there are just not examples of trees like that anymore.
Mr. Pritts stated that a lot of the research is very long term; it
was started many years ago, and some of the production systems
require many, many years to determine their environmental influence
on ground water, soil structure, etc.; these experiments are in
progress and to have those removed would be devastating to people who
have put their whole lifetime and effort into this type of work.
'Planning Board -6- May 7, 1991
Finally, Mr. Pritts said that it should be kept in mind that the
Orchards is the only indication that Cornell has any Agricultural
roots.
Mr. Lewis Roscoe, Cornell Campus Planning, stated that planning
is a complicated process, and the planning for the Orchards area
involved .issues that are of general interest and some very specific
interests, like interest about particular intersections or
circulation of the parking, or something about the Ordinance, etc.
Mr. Roscoe stated that the way the process is going to work is that
there will be many months of public hearings and communication with
the Town regarding the G /EIS which involves specific questions having
to do with the Orchards area. Mr. Roscoe commented that there may
also be several other kinds of questions that are more internal to
Cornell; the Planning Office is really not the one to be able to
respond to questions about the future of the Orchards, that is
something handled through the College of Agriculture. Mr. Roscoe
said that there will be a newsletter as a way of responding to
general questions that Cornell recognizes to be general. Mr. Roscoe
noted three ways of dealing with information and Cornell thinks the
matter is participatory. Mr. Roscoe stated that Cornell supports
many of the things that Ms. Emlen said, and also support concerns
that Mr. Pritts had mentioned. Mr. Roscoe stated that this process,
to work well, really needs a good interchange or interaction and
Cornell is open to ideas. Mr. Roscoe stated that a good plan should
represent a broad range of ideas from the whole community.
William Goldsmith, President of the Forest Home Neighborhood
Improvement Association, spoke from the floor and stated that the
Association had sent a letter to the Planning Board, with Chairperson
Grigorov responding, yes, the Planning Board received the letter.
Mr. Goldsmith reviewed the four points noted in the letter. (The
referenced letter is attached hereto as Exhibit ##2.)
Mr. Goldsmith stated that the Association focused on the impact
outside the Orchards. Mr. Goldsmith said the group asked,
essentially, in the G /EIS process, that the Town Planning Board and
Cornell pay particular attention to the likelihood that damage from
increased traffic would affect neighborhoods adjacent to the area,
including, of course, Forest Home, Mr. Goldsmith said that the
Association had requested that the boundary of the adjacent area be
considered for the study of traffic impact and be clarified, and, as
the Association understands it, extended, from what appears to be
something like 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile, and as the Association
designated it, specifically, for consideration of traffic issues.
Secondly, the Association asks that the study process considers
specific traffic harm to neighboring communities. The third issue
raised by the Association was about adding intersections for
violations of traffic impacts, commenting that that issue has been
met. The fourth issue is that the Association differs with the
standard used for baseline for traffic impacts; the standard that has
been proposed in the revision as well is that traffic increase or
• decrease should be projected against today's traffic, not against
some general background of increase as a result of development of
•
•
Planning Board -7- May 7, 1991
Upstate New York, of Dryden, of downtown, etc., because the increase
might be swamped by that more general information. Mr. Goldsmith
wondered how much the G /EIS is supposed to be a standard against
which future development in the area will really be judged if one
does not have any idea about the plans. Mr. Goldsmith said that he
does not know exactly what the current zoning permits and what kind
of lessening of restrictions is being requested by means of the
G /EIS. Chairperson Grigorov responded that she did not think it
would be a lessening.
Town Engineer Dan Walker, responding to Mr. Goldsmith, stated
that he thought the Campus Plan will be developed to a higher level
than what it is now, because it is the very beginning stages of the
plan. Mr. Walker offered that the rezoning request would be for a
Special Land Use District because that is the only zone that is
appropriate in the current Zoning Ordinance, and the purpose of the
environmental review process and the study is to determine what is an
acceptable level of development in the area, and address all those
impacts and mitigating measures. Mr. Walker offered that as the
process develops the threshold levels will be identified and included
in the Final G /EIS. Mr. Goldsmith asked if the area was presently
zoned Agricultural. Mr. Walker replied that it is now zoned
Residential R -15 and R -309 Acting Town Planner George Frantz said
that right now the existing zoning is Residential R -30 which, of
course, allows residential uses, and allows educational uses by
Special Approval, but, unfortunately, there is very little guidance
for the Town Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals to help them
assess educational projects, i.e., the types of large buildings that
educational institutions like Cornell tend to need for their
mission. Mr. Frantz said that the Special Land Use District would be
a zoning that would, essentially, take into account the character of
Cornell University and provide more of a framework for the Planning
Board, and the Town of Ithaca to evaluate proposals by the
University, provide required land use restrictions such as setbacks,
parking, height, and the like; restrictions that are more appropriate
for a University than the existing residential zoning.
Sandy Tallant, of Cornell Planning, stated that there is a desire
for everyone to see a plan and the point of going through the process
is to first establish the environmental baseline. Ms. Tallant stated
that one of Cornell's own internal issues or problems is deciding
what they can come up with; what they think will be needed for the
future, but understanding what that impact is, and how much of that
land can be developed, is questionable until Cornell understands some
of the environmental issues such as: are there wetlands, where the
natural areas are. Ms. Tallant stated that in that process Cornell
will determine how much actual building that area can support. Ms.
Tallant stated that the consultants for Cornell will do the baseline
inventory and then test several different scenarios and try to find a
scenario that seems to address the current environmental issues as a
means for making those decisions.
Karen Baum, 237 Forest Home Drive, approached the Board and noted
that if, in fact, the EIS is to address a baseline inventory, then
(Planning Board -8- May 7, 1991
• she felt that that seemed another reason to compare traffic figures
at the present to what they would be projected to be with the
addition of any development in the Orchards area, rather than
comparing it against or to the future. Ms. Tallant responded that
Cornell is trying, through the taking of traffic counts, to establish
how much current traffic there is with the idea that as one projects
development one can extrapolate into the future how much traffic
there is expected to be generated, then try to understand how that
changes from what exists today as to what is being proposed. Ms.
Tallant stated that there is that activity going on, whether or not
the scope has been very clear in illustrating that. Ms. Tallant
l
stated that she felt one of the things gained from the community
meetings held earlier this month was that communication was opened up
regarding the scope and Cornell has made a first attempt in the
amendment to try and clear up or establish more clarity, but the
intention is to look at current conditions.
Lars Washburn, of 112 Judd Falls Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that he had a major concern with traffic. Mr. Washburn
commented that there have been concerns about traffic levels as early
as the late 1950s and early 1960s. Mr. Washburn commented that
addressing traffic increase to what it is now is ignoring the fact
that the Forest Home Improvement Association has been, primarily, in
existence to try and save quality of life in the Forest Home
community from being destroyed by traffic for well over 20 years.
Mr. Washburn commented that Forest Home is being threatened on two
sides; one with this current study which will affect the Orchards
area, and another one which is proposing changing the residences
which are on Pleasant Grove and Hasbrouck Apartments to more
dormitory access. Mr. Washburn wants to make sure the traffic
situation is adequately addressed in the G /EIS.
Betsy Darlington, of 204 Fairmount Avenue, approached the Board
and stated that she felt it was clear that the most controversial
thing in any proposal for this area is going to be the loss of the
Orchards. Ms. Darlington asked that it be looked into in depth as to
the impact on Cornell, on the students and faculty, and on the
community. Ms. Darlington, commenting on whatever is proposed in the
Orchards area, wondered about how it would be better for Cornell, and
for the community, than what is there now. Mr. Roscoe responded that
Cornell can talk about relocation and effects on the land as to its
use. Ms. Darlington said that Cornell should also talk about losing
the Orchards to the community, adding that that is a major impact.
Mr. Roscoe replied that Cornell can address that as part of the
process. Mr. Roscoe indicated that there are no plans now to take
away the Orchards, there was some initial planning about that 20
years ago; there are some plans that call for other land uses, 20
years from now, where the Orchard now is, but that is 40 years of
time, 20 years of that has passed, but, he noted, he was not in on
the discussion 20 years ago regarding the relocation and he is not
going to be here 20 years from now.
Paul Hartman, of 132 Pine Tree Road, addressed the Board and
offered that he was informed that Cornell grows at the rate of 1% per
Planning Board -9- May 7, 1991
• year. Mr. Hartman stated that the community should be looking, not
just in terms of 10 years, but for 100 years. Mr. Hartman stated
that he is very concerned about growth. Mr. Roscoe responded that
Cornell is not going to, currently, increase its enrollment; it has
leveled off; there are going to have to be a few kinds of facilities
that Cornell is going to have to provide in response to changing
technology, in response to things where the University has never had
an adequate supply.
Sandy Tallant
commented that, as part of the G /EIS, although
one
cannot project
into the future with total accuracy,
Cornell
has
_
chosen the number
of 1% because after looking over several
years
that
" seemed a figure
that Cornell could get a handle on. Ms.
Tallant
said
that the G /EIS is
set up in such a way that development
will
be
J
looked at as thresholds;
the idea is to look at the impacts
against
assess impacts on a road that does not exist,
those thresholds,
so whether one adds 100,000 gross square
feet and
X
amount of parking
spaces, the first year or 20 years
from now
the
point is that the
Environmental Impact will be looked at;
it is
very
hard to predict
what the needs of the University are
going to
do.
Ms. Tallant offered
that Cornell had hoped to incorporate
the need
in
the Environmental
Impact over a long period of time.
•
Cindy Sherman, of 3 Snyder Heights, approached the
Board
and
stated that, in reading the proposed
scope of issues
she
was
surprised not to hear any mention of the
connector road that
has been
discussed at various points over the last
five years. Ms.
Sherman
wondered about the status of the road, and
how it would fit
into
the
whole plan. Ms. Tallant responded that
it is very difficult
to
assess impacts on a road that does not exist,
adding, when
a project
such as this is put forth to the community
another EIS would
need
to
be done on the road specifically. Ms.
Sherman wondered
about
the
areas of population growth and development
potential Cornell
plans
to
consider.
Doug Brittain, of 135
stated that from his
approximately a 3% annual
years, Cornell, in terms of
Warren Road, spoke from
calculations Cornell has
growth. Mr. Brittain said
gross square footage doubles
the floor and
experienced
that every 25
in size.
Rick Reisinger, of 2800 County Line Rd., Watkins Glen, NY, spoke
from the floor and stated that he was the Orchards Manager, at the
Orchards. Mr. Reisinger mentioned that he thought the Orchards will
be a very serious issue regarding the whole matter; replacing or not
having the Orchards will be a major issue to the public. Mr.
Reisinger commented about the public service announcements regarding
the way a meeting is handled. Mr. Reisinger stated that he heard
about the meeting by just being around Cornell, but he had heard
several radio announcements that really never said the Orchards area;
they just talked about the G /EIS and gave the boundaries of the area
that is being dealt with. Mr. Reisinger felt there would be a better
representation of the people that are concerned if the Orchards area
were mentioned.
Planning Board -10- May 7, 1991
• Monique Stark, of 116 Judd Falls Road, addressed the Board and
stressed the importance of traffic and how any development might
affect any increase in traffic, not just because of the level of
noise and how it disturbs the environment, but especially the safety
factor, as she has two small children. Ms. Stark stated that it not
only affects small children, but older people as well.
J
•
Dooley Kiefer, of 629 Highland Road, appeared before the Board
and stated that as an individual Town resident she would strongly
prefer that the Town Board which has been legislatively determined to
be Lead Agency for rezonings, retain that Lead Agency status. Ms.
Kiefer stated that she understands the Planning Board's expertise in
planning, and thought there is a way to reconcile the Town Board's
wishes with her wishes. Ms. Kiefer stated that the Town Board could
have the Planning Board handle the G /EIS process for it, but the Town
Board itself would retain its ultimate authority to issue the
findings statement. Ms. Kiefer believed that authority should rest
with the Town's elected officials rather than with the Planning
Board. Ms. Kiefer, referring to the G /EIS scope, Page 3, under B.
Location, suggested that a fourth point be added; it would deal with
the description of existing and past uses of the land, adding that
she felt it important, especially where there have been various
chemicals used or stored. Ms. Kiefer then referred to Page 4, C11
under Total Site Area. Ms. Kiefer thought it would be a worthwhile
endeavor to indicate the amount of tree removal that is anticipated.
Ms. Kiefer referred to Page 4, under Structures. Ms. Kiefer said
that the proposed Tennis Facility was used as an example of a project
where a certain level of detail may have been reached, in which case
Cornell will reveal that level of detail. Ms. Kiefer suggested that
for specific projects that have progressed to that level of detail,
in particular, relevant to those projects, analyze their
transportation impacts; how will people get to the Tennis Bubble, for
example, rather than simply a generic look at traffic growth. Ms.
Kiefer referred to Page 6, Water Resources, where ground water is
talked about. Ms. Kiefer stated she thought a Letter B might be
added, and specifically address hydrology in the direction of the
flow of ground water. Under Point 2, Surface Water, B, where it is
proposed to use a model to reveal impacts, Ms. Kiefer stated that she
hoped Cornell would plan to include a description of the actual
drainage; what areas go to what streams; where they discharge into
them, etc. Continuing, Ms. Kiefer referred to Page 7, Air Resources,
where National and State Air Quality Standards are talked about,
stating that she thought it would useful for everyone to know where
Cornell plans to set up monitoring and what, specifically, would be
monitored. Ms. Kiefer stated that she thought it would useful for
the Town of Ithaca to know, under Section D, Terrestrial and Aquatic
Ecology, who the Cornell Consultants would be using to do the
vegetation, fish and wildlife, and the wetlands scrutiny. Ms. Kiefer
wondered if they would be subcontracted out to experts. Ms. Kiefer
referred to Page 10, where the Continuation of Road Intersections
Cornell would be examining is listed. Ms. Kiefer said that she
glanced over the amendment that was available tonight and was glad to
see that Cornell had added all of the ones she had thought of, except
for the continuation of Pine Tree Road out to Slaterville Road. Ms.
Planning Board -11- May 7, 1991
• Kiefer stated that Slaterville Road is used by a lot of people coming
and going from the Campus and from Town. Ms. Kiefer commented that,
in addition to the pleas made by Forest Home and Ellis Hollow for
impact on their specific communities, she thought it would be
important to consider the impacts on additional neighborhoods, such
as Bryant Park, and even the Village of Cayuga Heights. Ms. Kiefer
again referred to Page 10, Public Transportation, where Cornell
states they will describe existing components of the system. Ms.
Kiefer wondered if there would be a description of Cornell's planned
future components, or does that come under a mitigation section
somewhere else in the document; she was not sure where that might be
addressed; she did not see it. Ms. Kiefer referred to Page 11, Land
Use and Zoning, Number 1, Existing Land Use. Ms. Kiefer thought
that, again, some discussion of past land use is appropriate. Ms.
Kiefer continued on to Page 12, Demography, and suggested that, in
line with SEQR in general, that Cornell discuss job creation and job
loss, and types of housing availability. Ms. Kiefer referred to Page
16, and stated that, since the revised SEQR process in New York State
is now intended to include impacts of development on solid waste
generation, she thought perhaps there should be a new Section 10,
specifically the effects on solid waste generation amounts and
types. Lastly, Ms. Kiefer stated that she was very pleased that
Cornell is doing this, and the Town of Ithaca recognizes the
importance of calling for the G /EIS. Ms. Kiefer said that a G /EIS on
Cornell's plans for all of its precincts would be equally useful and
appropriate. Ms. Kiefer commented that Cornell's long range plans
• for use of all of its lands in the greater Ithaca area affect more
than just the Town of Ithaca; they affect the City, the Village of
Cayuga Heights, the Village of Lansing, the Town of Lansing, and the
Town of Dryden. Ms. Kiefer offered that, even within the limited
G /EIS, Cornell will have to discuss alternative sites for certain
functions which may well mean that some of the other Cornell lands
will be referred to. Ms. Kiefer stated that she did not want to
suggest that this should not go forward as planned, but would urge
Cornell to do the same for the rest of its lands. Ms. Kiefer
commented that she thought Forest Home and the Village of Cayuga
Heights would be very happy to see Cornell, for example, deal with
Hasbrouck Apts., and Pleasant Grove housing as part of a G /EIS to the
northeast.
Peggy Walbridge, of 123 Hunt Hill Road, spoke to the members of
the Board and public present. Ms. Walbridge offered that she
occupies a seat on the Dryden Town Board. Ms. Waldbridge said that
she is at the meeting tonight to discuss a couple of issues, one of
them is over the traffic issue. Ms. Walbridge mentioned lower speed
limits. Ms. Walbridge commented that the State grants some requests
for lower speed limits, but the other response is that the State says
there are not enough accidents. Ms. Walbridge pleaded with the
Planning Board to do preventive planning, rather than just say: this
is what the law is and we'll let the other agencies take care of it.
Ms. Walbridge stated that she likes the Ellis Hollow idea of a
• bikeway being provided. Ms. Walbridge also stated that someone has
to deal with the corridors into the Town of Dryden, as the parcel in
Planning Board -12- May 7, 1991
question does adjoin the Town of Dryden, adding that she hopes the
•
traffic issues will be looked at, along with the development issues.
David J. Kuckuk, of 229 Forest Home Drive, appeared before the
Board and stated that he had four brief comments, none of which deal
with traffic. Mr. Kuckuk's first comment was to express his
appreciation to both the Planning Board and Cornell University for a
very open and honest process, and an attempt to make it
participatory, as Campus Planner Lewis Roscoe had stated, adding that
he was very happy to see, that because it reflects the Agenda that
r
was established by the Town a couple of years ago. Mr. Kuckuk stated
that he supports very strongly the notion of a G /EIS as an initial
document trying to establish baselines, and to understand the broad
sense of effects on the environment, and also as a part of the Agenda
the Town established to try to deal with planning on a more
comprehensive level, as opposed to piece by piece. Thirdly, Mr.
Kuckuk commented that he supports Ms. Kiefer's comment that the Town
Board probably is appropriate as Lead Agency simply because of the
directness of responsibility, with the expertise of the Planning
Board applied in an advisory manner. Fourthly, to simply take a jab
at those who fall into the myopia established by those professional
planners who forget to continue drawing when the subject property
borders are reached. Mr. Kuckuk stated that, at the very least, it
is frustrating for those who are concerned with things slightly
beyond the borders, and, at the very worst, there is kind of a
suspicion that the intent really was not to look beyond the borders,
• which this process neither deserves nor should be hampered by.
Mario Giannella, of 6 Dove Drive, addressed the Board and noted
that in the G /EIS up -date it says that facilities likely to go into
the precinct might be for research, library, administrative, and
conference use. Mr. Giannella said that what is unmentioned is the
area of most explosive growth at Cornell, which is parking. Mr.
Giannella noted that the number of parking spaces at Cornell has
doubled in just the last five or ten years, and there have been plans
for peripheral parking lots, large peripheral parking lots, in this
precinct area; they have gone unmentioned, and Mr. Giannella would
like Cornell to talk about specific plans that they have, either in
the East Hill area, or anywhere within the GEIS outlined area for
large parking lots.
Mr. Roscoe, responding to Mr. Giannella, stated that all his
comments would be addressed in the G /EIS process. Mr. Roscoe offered
that a lot of things would be examined in substantial depth. Mr.
Roscoe stated that the University has a demand transportation plan
that it is trying to undertake, and will probably be undertaken this
year (1991), adding that all of the specifics of that have not been
ironed out, but it looks as though that will be put into place
sometime this summer. Mr. Roscoe said that that will have some big
impact on the demand, right now there is a shortage of parking
spaces. Mr. Roscoe said that another thing has to do with the amount
• of growth that could be expected. 'Mr. Roscoe stated that the amount
of built development in this area is going to be a generator of
parking, as well as the University as a whole. Mr. Roscoe stated
Planning Board -13- May 7, 1991
• that Cornell has a very capable traffic engineer. Mr. Giannella
wondered if there were any specific plans for East Hill expansion as
to parking lots, or expansion of the Cornell A or B lot. Mr. Roscoe
replied that the lot on Rte. 366, which is the B lot, will not be
expanded; the A lot will not be expanded; each lot has a different
role in the transportation parking plan. Mr. Roscoe said that East
Hill, around East Hill Plaza, will be part of the G /EIS process. Mr.
Roscoe said that there is no current plan to develop the East Hill
parking lot that was brought to the Planning Board in 1990. Mr..
Roscoe stated that there are no plans for parking garages.
r
Sandy Tallant, Cornell Campus Planner, stated that she thought a
very important issue in doing the G /EIS that is important to
understand is that, as important a process as it is for the Town of
Ithaca, it is very important to Cornell University, in terms of, in
the long -term to try to understand the types of impacts. Ms. Tallant
said that part of the reason Cornell does not have very solid plans
to present right now is because through this process of understanding
traffic and a number of the other things, Cornell is going to
understand better, themselves, what they have and the impacts they
are proposing; it will be addressed in the G /EIS. Ms. Tallant stated
that Cornell will be exploring ways in which to mitigate those
issues; it will be an open process, and it is important to realize
the interaction Cornell is trying to do in their planning.
Natalie Emlen, of 45 Lone Oak Road, again addressed the Board.
• Ms. Emlen stated that she has one basic frustration with the G /EIS
outline. Ms. Emlen referred to Page 5, IV, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
Ms. Emlen said that the definition is that this section will provide
a baseline description of the environment. Ms. Emlen then referred
to Page 9, Letter F, Transportation. Ms. Emlen commented that this
section starts mixing what is and what will be, adding that she got
very frustrated trying to put her comments about transportation into
the context of this outline, because Section IV is really supposed to
be the baseline "what is ". Section III - the plan, the design, the
layout, and Section V - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATING MEASURES: those two Sections, III and V, seem to her to be
the appropriate place to discuss future parking and transportation
problems, as the project is going to impact and create those
problems. Ms. Emlen said that the reason she wants to stress that
is, if the future of the parking and the transportation issue is
discussed in terms of Section III, Letter C, people are going to have
to put. stuff on maps, see a plan, and see a design and a layout, and
they are also going to have to discuss it in Section V, in terms of
mitigating factors. Ms. Emlen stated that, if Section IV is supposed
to be existing baseline data, she would like it to be "what is" now,
and put the future someplace else.
Bruce Brittain, of 135 Warren Road, spoke from the floor and
stated that he thought the G /EIS was a very important project to be
undertaken, and he would like to see more in the future. Mr.
• Brittain reiterated a concern of his in that the clarity of that
Scope has to be improved tremendously before going further, adding
that there are tremendous numbers of items in the Scope that he
Planning Board -14- May 7, 1991
thought were understood, but unless they are specifically stated, Mr.
Brittain felt that when the G /EIS comes out there will be, at that
time, misunderstandings. Mr. Brittain said that if one thinks
something is included, but it is not specifically stated, he thought
it was very important to make sure it gets in now. Examples that Mr.
Brittain came up with are. Transportation - Mr. Brittain would
assume that it was assumed that the impact of traffic on
neighborhoods is part of transportation, but that was not in there.
Also with transportation, Mr. Brittain mentioned there was
discussion, although there are no specific plans for the area, there
will be schematic plans for buildings, and schematic plans for
parking. Mr. Brittain said that there was no mention of schematic
plans of roadways in the G /EIS, commenting that that has to be in the
f Scope. Mr. Brittain said that where those roads go will have a
tremendous impact on surrounding neighborhoods, and along with that,
if there are plans for an East Ithaca connector that will likely go
through, or at least adjacent to, the G /EIS area. Mr. Brittain said
that if there is ongoing planning for an East Ithaca connector it has
to be included in the ongoing planning for the G /EIS area, adding
that those two cannot be separate items. Mr. Brittain commented that
another concern, which has been mentioned, but he wanted to
reiterate, is that of the ownership of the land, it seems that the
land is owned by Cornell, but some of the buildings are owned by the
State. Mr. Brittain stated that he felt it has to be clear as to who
is responsible for the planning of those buildings. Mr. Brittain
mentioned whether or not a State - funded building has to or may not
• have to meet Town requirements. Mr. Brittain felt that it has to be
clear and spelled out in the G /EIS which ownerships of buildings that
have to meet Town Regulations will go through the Cornell Planning
Office. Mr. Brittain wants to make sure that that is clear at the
outset rather than being a surprise.
At this point, Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any
further comments from the public. Chairperson Grigorov announced to
those present.if there was anything else she would be glad to have it
written down.
Gerhard Jirka, of 50 Hickory Road, approached the Board and
stated that he felt it was important to look beyond the immediate
area, also it is important to conduct a similar G /EIS in other
areas. Mr. Jirka wondered why the area next to Maple Avenue, north
of the cemetery and over to the Cornell Power Plant, was not simply
attached to the present G /EIS study area; it seemed to him that that
is contiguous land and similar land use in the entire area. Mr.
Jirka finds that somewhat of an omission. Secondly, Mr. Jirka noted
that the map omits the existing path that goes north of Cascadilla
Creek.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any explanations for Mr.
Jirka's comments. Sandy Tallant responded that the map Cornell is
showing tonight was to simply make it very clear in terms of
• understanding the study area; the areas outside of the G /EIS being
part of the study are intrinsic in the G /EIS. Ms. Tallant stated
that future maps will become, as more information is developed, more
f Planning Board -15- May 7, 1991
• detailed. Ms. Tallant said
computer effort Cornell is doing
stages of adding information,
as they progress.
•
that the maps presented tonight are a
at their office and they are in the
adding that the source will be updated
Board Member Eva Hoffmann, commenting on the area north of Maple
Avenue, including the Cornell Heating Plant, wondered if that was
going to be included in future maps. Sandy Tallant responded that
Cornell will put the surrounding areas of the boundaries on the map.
Ms. Tallant's response as to whether the areas would be included in
the study area is that Cornell has been working on the boundaries
with the Town. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if there was a specific reason
why that one was excluded. Board Member Virginia Langhans wondered
if it meant there was no additional land there for future
development; that it is fully developed. Ms. Tallant responded that,
as she knows it, she did not believe there was any anticipated
development on those pieces of land, commenting that when the whole
G /EIS was conceived Cornell tried to look at areas based on the 1990
Master Plan where there was a substantial amount of development.
Acting Town Planner George Frantz, indicating on the map, pointed
out the cemetery, Ide's Bowling Lanes, and Maplewood Park, adding,
this is a relatively small area and much of it is within a power line
right of way, so he questions whether there was need to include that
area within the G /EIS. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she thought she
remembered from the Master Plan that was presented last year that
some housing was sketched in on that stretch of land along Judd Falls
Road. An unidentified voice responded that there was student housing
on the map that Cornell published in the Plan. Mr. Roscoe stated
that that is true, but Cornell is not thinking of that any longer and
he did not think there was any development being considered for that
area. Another unidentified voice commented that it seems as though
if there was something planned a year ago it means that land is
available for a project in the future. Mr. Roscoe stated that one of
the reasons Cornell did not pursue that is because of the power line;
there is a major overhead transmission line in that area, and it is
not appropriate to put housing under a transmission line. Another
unidentified voice said that along the same lines, there were housing
plans for where the old Oxley Polo facility used to be. Mr. Roscoe
responded that that is not in the same area, but there was no housing
plan for that site.
Attorney Barney stated that it is probably wise to keep in mind
that the fact that something is not included in the G /EIS does not
mean that it won't be subject to fairly intensive environmental
review if there were a change in the University's plans, in fact, it
is probably to the University's advantage to keep as much in the
G /EIS area as possible, because then it means that they meet certain
criteria that establishes part of the G /EIS process. Attorney Barney
offered that, in a way, the more the area is broadened, in some
respects, perhaps, it will be reviewed now, but when the actual
project comes along, if it meets the thresholds that are the outcome
of the G /EIS, there would be less review at that particular point in
time.
tPlanning Board -16- May 7, 1991
• Chairperson Grigorov asked if
the G /EIS, to be brought up
comments, Chairperson Grigorov
develop the scoping process.
for those present that regarding
will be a working meeting on May
there was anything new regarding
tonight. There being no further
thanked everyone for helping to
Again, Chairperson Grigorov announced
any other ideas or comments there
21, 1991, commencing at 8:15 p.m.
Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Informational Meeting with
respect to the proposed scope of the Cornell University G /EIS at 8:40
p.m.
ADJOURNED
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION
OF PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AND
RENOVATION OF
HASBROUCK
APARTMENTS,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, LOCATED ON
PLEASANT-GROVE
ROAD, TOWN
OF ITHACA
TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 67 -1 -2.1 and
6 -68 -1 -10.1,
MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE
DISTRICT. CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
OWNER; ALBERT
WRIGHT,
AGENT. (ADJOURNED FROM MARCH 19, 19919)
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 8:41 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Albert Wright, of Cornell University, addressed the Board and
stated he was representing Cornell. Mr. Wright appended maps to the
bulletin board.
Mr. Wright stated that subsequent to the Public Hearing Cornell
had supplied the reports that the Town Engineer had requested
regarding the water system and sewage calculations.
Mr. Wright said that Hasbrouck Apartments is presently a family
housing community on the Cornell campus and will remain as such. Mr.
Wright remarked that there are 28 existing apartment buildings,
adding that Cornell is proposing to add 92 additional units by
constructing a third floor to half of those 28 buildings. Mr. Wright
offered that the 92 additional units would be at the rear of the
site, away from Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. Wright noted that the
entire site would be renovated and upgraded, the community is about
30 years old. Mr. Wright stated that Cornell is going to replace
building services, improve the windows, insulate the buildings, put
new roofs on, and change the architecture of the community by adding
gabled roofs to all of the buildings. Mr. Wright stated that the
additional units would take the community from 246 to 338 living
units.
At this time, Acting Town Planner George Frantz noted that he was
asked at the April 16, 1991 Planning Board meeting to look at
traffic, not merely the impact of the expansion of Hasbrouck
Apartments, but also the combined impact of the expansion at
Hasbrouck and the construction currently proposed of the 600 -bed
dormitory complex on the Pleasant Grove site. Mr. Frantz commented
• that the idea was -- Hasbrouck is being expanded to accommodate those
units lost at Pleasant Grove,
Mr. Frantz
said
that when
he
did the
original
EAF
for the Hasbrouck
expansion
he assumed
that
the
Pleasant
Planning Board -17- May 7, 1991
• Grove Apartments would, in fact, remain, and thus he projected a
worst case scenario of an additional 96 dwelling units being
constructed in that area of Pleasant Grove Road, and thus an
additional 400 vehicular trips per day. Mr. Frantz said that if one
factors in the demolition of Pleasant Grove there is a reduction of
400 vehicular trips per day, then, essentially, the expansion at
Hasbrouck would be negated. Mr. Frantz stated that the problem as he
sees it is that -- what is the impact of the 600 -bed dormitory
complex? Mr. Frantz stated that he is trying to find some data
source on the traffic generation potential of dormitories, but,
unfortunately, he has not been able to find anything. However, the
information that Mr. Frantz has may be of some assistance in that,
currently, the North Campus dormitory area includes that area of the
Campus from the Thurston Avenue bridge, Risley Hall, Anna Comstock
Hall north, Balch Hall, Dixon Hall, Donlon Hall, the North Campus
high rises and low rises, and the townhouse units. Mr. Frantz
offered that there are a total of approximatley 3200 beds in that
area. Mr. Frantz said that based on the information he secured from
the Cornell Transportation Services there are approximately 540
students who have dormitory parking permits for that area, so it
appears that there is a ratio of about one car for every six beds,
adding, the dormitory complex could account for about another 100
cars in that area of the Town. Mr. Frantz stated that he could not
find any indication of how many times a day those cars would be
leaving the parking lots or parking spaces, and going off someplace
and returning. Mr. Frantz feels that the dormitory complex would not
generate the 400 trips per day that he projected for Hasbrouck. Mr.
Frantz mentioned not having any access from the dormitory complex
onto Pleasant Grove Road, rather that it be served by the existing
interior road network of the North Campus dormitory complex.
Mr. Wright stated that the University has delayed any action on
that dormitory complex on Pleasant Grove Road for 4 -5 years. Mr.
Wright said that at the time it was being looked at in more detail,
the plan was that there would not be student parking on that site,
and that access to it would be from Jessup Road, not Pleasant Grove
Road, commenting that Cornell expects that to be the case, if, and
when, the project is reactivated.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she has concerns about the traffic. Ms.
Hoffmann, directing her inquiry to the people from Cornell, wondered
if the kind of figures Mr. Frantz came up with was Cornell's
understanding of the matter. Mr. Wright responded that he thought it
was about right; he had not looked at it in the whole North Campus
area, but he had submitted figures he had gotten for family housing,
looking at Pleasant Grove, Hasbrouck, and Maplewood. Ms. Hoffmann
commented that that was for families, but wondered about
undergraduates. Mr. Wright replied that, by and large, those would
be graduate students in family housing. Ms. Hoffmann wondered if
Cornell had any figures concerning the undergraduates. Mr. Wright
answered that he does not. Mr. Frantz offered that the figure of 540
• permits is for undergraduate students living'in the undergrad dorms;
it does not include Pleasant Grove or Hasbrouck.
oPlanning Board -18- May 7, 1991
• Ms. Aronson thought that equally important is the traffic
pattern, because students, typically, are not taking their cars onto
the Campus proper but are driving in the surrounding areas, and
wondered if there was any data on traffic patterns that are generated
by student -owned cars. Mr. Wright responded, no, he has not been
able to find it; they do not have that at Hasbrouck. Chairperson
Grigorov said that there is no access on the road and the traffic
pattern would be down and away from Forest Home. Ms. Aronson said,
no, because one could be going out on Jessup Road, either to
Triphammer Road and out to the Community Corners, or onto Pleasant
Grove Road down through Forest Home, or other areas.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or
questions.
William Goldsmith, of Forest Home, spoke from the floor and
stated that he agreed with Mr. Frantz's argument, technically, but it
seems like the actual increase from what is proposed for five years
from now is rather modest compared to what is already there. Mr.
Goldsmith felt that the traffic already there is intolerable.
At this point, Chairperson Grigorov announced that tonight's
meeting is mainly for Hasbrouck, not the future hypothetical
dormitory.
• Ms. Hoffmann wondered if the Pleasant Grove housing was going to
be taken down now, even though the new dormitory is not going to be
considered for four or five years. Chuck Jankey, from the Department
of Residence Life at Cornell University, responded that the present
housing is not in good shape, and there are roof problems to the
point where Cornell cannot make effective repairs. Mr. Jankey stated
that those apartments will be closed building by building, adding
that, presently there are two buildings closed. Ms. Hoffmann
inquired as to the total number of buildings. Mr. Jankey replied
that there are 12 buildings, of which ten are fully occupied.
Larry Fabbroni, of Cornell University, addressed the Board and
stated that Hasbrouck Apartments is served by the Cornell Transit
System; it is served by a number of the Ithaca Transit lines to North
Campus and to Hasbrouck Apartments itself. Mr. Fabbroni offered that
as a practical matter the people who have permits to park in that
area do not have free access to parking on Campus by virtue of that
permit; they are basically storing their cars there unless one of
their spouses works outside that particular complex.
Eva Hoffmann referred to a letter addressed to James Hanson,
Commissioner, from Dwight Mengel, Chief Transportation Planner, dated
March 27, 1991. [Letter attached hereto as Exhibit No. 3]. Ms.
Hoffmann also referred to a letter addressed to George Frantz, from
James W. Hanson, Jr., Planning Commissioner, dated April 1, 1991,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 4.
1 Planning Board -19- May 7, 1991
• Ms. Hoffmann mentioned having precise information about drainage
at Hasbrouck Apartments. Town Engineer Dan Walker responded that
storm water management is addressed in his memo to the Planning Board
dated May 3, 1991, which is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 5.
Attorney Barney inquired as to what plant Hasbrouck Apartments feeds
into. Mr. Walker replied that it feeds into the joint plant which is
the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Doug Brittain, of 135 Warren Road, spoke from the floor and asked
how construction traffic would get to the Warren Road end of "that"
little dirt road. Mr. Wright replied that he thought it depended on
which direction it was coming from. Mr. Walker stated that there is
a 5 -ton weight limit on Forest Home Road itself, and one of the
bridges in Forest Home is limited to 5 -tons.
Mr. Brittain stated that he has a height concern regarding the
Hasbrouck Apartments. Mr. Brittain mentioned the Golf Course in that
there is a problem with golf balls hitting cars.
Chairperson Grigorov, directing her comment to Mr. Frantz, asked
how high the roofs would be in relation to the skyline. Mr. Frantz
responded that he does not have the exact figures but he could not
say for sure the roofs would not block" Mr. Brittain's view of the
sunset. Mr. Bruce Brittain distributed photographs of the view to
members of the Board.
• There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
Ms. Langhans wondered if the architect's plans were set in stone
so that the height cannot be lowered. Mr. Wright answered, yes,
Cornell expects to go out to bid in about a month; the construction
documents are about 75 % -80% complete.
Ms. Hoffmann asked specifically
Ms. Aronson
if there
had been any changes
to
the drawings,
because she thought
the
architect
mentioned that
he
himself was
not very happy with
the
design
on the short ends of
the
buildings, where the pitched roof has
Aronson wondered about
one edge
that is longer than
and what
the other.
Mr. Wright responded
that
there
have been no changes
to
the drawings
as to the design.
preserve
more green
space.
Chairperson Grigorov
Ms. Aronson
asked to hear
a little more about
the landscaping.
Ms.
Aronson stated
that she
is referring specifically
to the comment
from
the County
Planning Commissioner,
James Hanson,
about the loss
of
recreational
space. Ms.
Aronson wondered about
the increased
density
and what
was going to
be done to offset that.
Mr. McPherson,
of
the LA Group,
responded
that the parking has been
scaled back to
preserve
more green
space.
Chairperson Grigorov
said that the
meeting
tonight
was for preliminary
approval and it
does not reflect
the
reduction in
parking.
6 Planning Board -20- May 7, 1991
• There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
C
•
MOTION by Robert Kenerson,
WHEREAS:
seconded by James Baker.
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed expansion and renovation of Hasbrouck
Apartments, Cornell University, located on Pleasant Grove Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 67 -1 -2.1 and 6 -68 -1 -10.1,
Multiple Residence District. Said expansion is proposed to
consist of the addition of 92 living units to the site by the
addition of a third floor to several existing buildings,
additional parking spaces, and landscape improvements.
2. This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for site
plan approval considerations, has, on March 19, 1991, made a
negative determination of environmental significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on March 19, 1991, and May
71 1991, has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, an
environmental assessment prepared by the Town Planning
Department, the comments of the Environmental Review Committee of
the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, a site plan
entitled "Hasbrouck Apartments, Cornell University ", prepared by
the LA Group Landscape Architecture and Engineering, P.C. and
Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture and Engineering, P.C., dated
February 28, 1991, two colored renderings representing buildings
for which height and distance variances are required, and other
application materials for this submission.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Site Plan Approval to the site plan entitled "Hasbrouck Apartments,
Cornell University ", prepared by the LA Group Landscape Architecture
and Engineering, P.C. and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture and
Engineering, P.C., dated February 28, 1991, subject to the following
conditions.
1. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for more than
246 dwelling units, arrangements being made, satisfactory to the
Town Board and Town Engineer, to provide for such additional
public sewer infrastructure as may be necessary to handle
increased loading resulting from the proposed expansion, or
provision of alternative means, acceptable to the Town Board and
the Town Engineer and the Tompkins County Department of Health,
of handling any such additional loading, it being understood by
the applicant that the granting of this Preliminary Site Plan
Approval in no way guarantees that such infrastructure will be
available at any time in the future.
r Planning Board -21- May 7, 1991
• 2. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any
third -floor dwelling units, arrangements being made, satisfactory
to the Town Board and the Town Engineer, to provide for such
additional water infrastructure as may be necessary to provide
adequate service to the site, it being understood by the
applicant that the granting of this Preliminary Site Plan
Approval in no way guarantees that such infrastructure will be
available at any time in the future.
3. The granting by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals of any
required variances for height, building separation, parking, and
any other deviation from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
J 49 Approval,
building
control
by the
permits,
plans for
Town Engineer prior to the issuance of any
of final drainage plans and soil erosion
both during and after construction.
5. Approval,
Approval,
by
of
the
the final
Planning Board as part of
parking plan.
the Final Site Plan
69 Approval,
Approval,
to be used
by
of
on
the Planning
the
the
Board as part of the
types and amounts of herbicides
project.
Final Site Plan
and pesticides
7. Buildings #41 and #43 to be reduced to two -story buildings and
the units so eliminated placed on any two of buildings #24, #53,
• #55 or #56, the location and placement of such units being
subject to approval by the Planning Board as part of the Final
Site Plan Approval.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Aronson.
Nay - Smith
Abstain - Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Grigorov declared
Preliminary Site Plan Approval
renovation of Hasbrouck Apartments,
at 11:16 p.m.
the matter of Consideration of
for the proposed expansion and
Cornell University, duly closed
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING
CHANGE ROOM AND LOBBY OF THE TENNIS BUBBLE AT LA TOURELLE, 1152 DANBY
ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 36- 1 -4.2, SPECIAL LAND USE
DISTRICT N0, 10 WALTER J. WIGGINS, ESQ., OWNER; WILLIAM DOWNING
ASSOCIATES, PETER NEWELL, ARCHITECT, AGENT
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
• above -noted matter duly opened at 11:17 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
(Planning Board -22- May 7, 1991
• Mr. Walter Wiggins addres
before the Board to seek
tennis courts. Mr. Wiggins d
site to members of the
announced for the record that
viewed the proposed site.
sed the Board and stated that he is
approval for the addition of two outdoor
istributed photographs of the proposed
Planning Board. Chairperson Grigorov
five members of the Planning Board have
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion.
Eva Hoffmann stated that she had some comments from the ERC. Ms.
Hoffmann wondered if the two new courts would be on the same level as
the existing one. Mr. Wiggins answered, no, one court would be at
the same level and the third court would be about eight feet lower.
Ms. Hoffmann, referring to the plans, commented that the courts are
adjoining one another, and wondered how that would be handled if
there is an eight -foot drop. Mr. Wiggins said that there would be a
slope down to the next level. Ms. Hoffmann wondered about the space,
in width, between the two tennis courts. Mr. Wiggins replied that
there is 16 feet between them and the slope would add another four
feet. Ms. Hoffmann inquired about the land to the west and wondered
how it is used. Mr. Wiggins responded that he owns the land to the
west and it is forest. Mr. Wiggins said that there will be lighting
. on the courts. Ms. Hoffmann wondered about pesticide use. Mr.
Wiggins responded that he does not anticipate any pesticide use, or
that it will be a problem.
Ms. Hoffmann noted that there
are two corrections in
the
EAF,
Part II, C31
-- answer
should be "Unknown
". Ms. Hoffmann
mentioned
the impact
on solid
waste generation
in the EAF, Part II,
C7.
Ms.
Hoffmann said
that
she felt solid
waste generation should
be
mentioned
under "Other
Impacts ". Ms.
Hoffmann stated that
the
final
comment of
the ERC was
that they see no
significant problems
with
the
project.
Ms. Hoffmann wondered if there were any problem with the third
tennis court being so close to the Special Land Use District. Mr.
Frantz responded that the actual boundary of the property is 700 feet
to the west: the adjacent landowner is the State of New York; the
property is Buttermilk Falls State Park, Mr. Frantz stated that he
reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and he found no setback requirements
for the distance between the structure and the boundary of the
Special Land Use District.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker:
• WHEREAS:
•
Planning Board
-23-
May 7, 1991
1. This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for
the
proposed
construction of two tennis
courts and expansion of
the
existing
change room and lobby of
the tennis bubble at
La
Tourelle,
1152 Danby Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.
6- 36- 1 -4.2,
Special Land Use District
No. 1.
a site plan
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at
Public Hearing
on May 7,
1991, has
reviewed the Short
Environmental
Assessment
Form, an
environmental assessment
prepared by
the Town
Planning
Department, the comments
of the Environmental
Review Committee of
the Town Conservation Advisory
Council,
a site plan
entitled
"Proposed Site Plan, La
Tourelle Tennis
Facilities ",
by William
Downing Associates Architects,
dated April
9, 1991,
and other
application materials for this submission.
4. The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made for this
action.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
. That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Judith Aronson.
WHEREAS.
1. This action
is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for
the
proposed
construction of
two
tennis courts and expansion of
the
existing
change room
and
lobby of the tennis bubble at
La
Tourelle,
1152 Danby
Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.
6- 36- 1 -4.2,
Special Land
Use
District No. 1.
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on May
71 1991, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
• 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on May 7, 1991, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, an
environmental assessment prepared by the Town Planning
Planning Board -24- May 7, 1991
Department, the comments of the Environmental Review Committee of
the Town Conservation Advisory Council, a site plan entitled
"Proposed Site Plan, La Tourelle Tennis Facilities ", by William
Downing Associates Architects, dated April 9, 1991, and other
application materials for this submission.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED.
That the Planning Board grant
and hereby
does
grant
Site Plan
Approval for the proposed tennis facilities,
as
shown
on
the site
plan entitled "Proposed Site Plan, La
Tourelle Tennis
Facilities
", by
William Downing Associates Architects,
dated April
9,
1991,
subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval, by the Town Engineer,
of sediment
and
erosion
control
plans for both during and after construction.
2. Construction of the tennis courts within the boundary lines of
the Special Land Use District.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Smith, Hoffmann, Aronson.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
• Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Site Plan
Approval of La Tourelle Two Tennis Courts and Expansion of Tennis
Bubble duly closed at 11 :30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING BOARD POLICY WITH RESPECT
TO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Chairperson Grigorov suggested that the above Agenda item be
deferred to the May 21, 1991 Planning Board Meeting.
AGENDA ITEM - APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Grigorov suggested that the approval of minutes be
deferred to the May 21, 1991 Planning Board Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the May 7, 1991,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:40
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary,
• Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Cornell University
Campus Planning Office
Humphreys Service Building
Ithaca, New York 14853 -3701
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Town Planning Board Members:
March 18, 1991
Office: (607) 255 -1126
Fax: (607) 255 -5329
Attached is a copy of the proposed draft scope of services associated
with the action requesting a re- zoning for the area bounded by Route 366,
Game Farm Road, and ,Cascadilla Creek from a Residence R -30 zone to a
Special Land Use District. A formal presentation, followed by a working
session, is scheduled with the Planning Board on April 16. On April 17 and
18, community information meetings will be held by Cornell. We look
• forward to working with the Town Planning Board and staff as the specific
scope is developed.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 255 -6902.
Thank you.
•
ST/ tm
Attachment
cc: Shirley Egan
Paul Griffen
John Gutenberger
LA Group
Very .truly yours,
Sandra L. Tallant, Landscape Architect
Campus Planner /Project Manager
Pat Mc Clary
Rist -Frost
Lew Roscoe
Travers Associates
•
u
Eyx/ A
•
•
Proposed Schedule
for
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
Cornell University Campus - Southeast Sector,
Located in the Town of Ithaca
March 19, 1991
Feb. 28: Suggested Draft Scope for GEIS delivered to the Town Staff
*The suggested scope will be reviewed by the Town planning
. staff 'with comments made to the Campus Planning Office.
March 6. Re- zoning Application submitted to the Town
EAF for Precinct 7 submitted to the Town
March 19: Distribution of Suggested Draft Scope to Town Planning Board.
• Presentation by Cornell
• No more than 5 minute presentation
April 16: Formal Presentation to Planning Board of Revised Draft Scope
and working session:
• Consultants will be in town
April 17: Public Information Meeting
• Consultants will be in town
April 18: Public Information Meeting
• Consultants will be in town
• Public information meetings will be held to inform the public
of the GEIS. These meetings are an opportunity to understand
the concerns of the community and prepare in advance of the
public scoping session. Following is a list of the communities
that will be presented to:
Forest Home
Cornell Heights
Cayuga Heights
Ellis Hollow
Pine Tree
Belle Sherman - Bryant Park
�xN A
May 7: Formal Scoping Session
• Consultants will be in town
May 21: Anticipated Formal Acceptance of GEIS Scope
May thru
August: Preparation of Draft GEIS
September. Submission of Draft GEIS to the Town:
• 30 day review period after submission
• Notice of completion issued by the Town
• Consultants will be in town
October. Public Hearing,
• 45 Day review period includes 10 days of public comment
• Consultants will be in town
November: Cornell Completes Final GEIS
• December. Submit Submission of Final GEIS to the Town:
*Notice of completion issued by Town
•
Ex N. A
L
h
•
•
r 1
U
Proposed Scope of Issues and
Outline for the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
The purpose of this proposed Scope is to provide a guide to the information and
level of detail to be included in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement ( DGEIS) for certain lands of Cornell University. These lands are the
area known as The Orchards bounded by Route 366, Game Farm Road and Cascadilla
Creek, and other University owned lands to the south bounded by Cascadilla Creek,
the Town of Dryden Town Line, Snyder Hill Road, Pine Tree Road, Slaterville Road,
The City of Ithaca line, Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road as illustrated on
the attached figure. The purpose of the DGEIS is to present a plan for the
development of The Orchards over a 20 year time frame and, to the extent
possible, provide information on proposed development for the lands south of The
Orchards. Portions of these lands are subject to use by New York State.
Planning and development of statutory facilities is governed in part by the State
of New York. As part of this process, Cornell will supply to the best of its
ability, available information on state projects that fall within the area
covered by the GEIS.
The level of detail of analysis wil
which more specific plans are known,
be used by New York State.
be greater on The Orchards parcel, about
than on the lands to the south which will
The following information shall be included in the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement.
1. COYER SHEET
The ccver sheet shall include:
A. A statement that it is a Draft Generic Environmental
Statement,
B. The name of the project.
-1-
Impact
March 19, 1991
•
•
C. The location of the project.
D. The name and address of the lead agency and the name and telephone
number of a contact person at the lead agency.
E. The name and address of the preparers of the document and the name
and telephone number of a contact.
F. The date of acceptance of the DGEIS.
G. The deadline date by which comments are due.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
The cover sheet shall be followed by an Executive Summary providing the
following:
A. A brief description of the action.
Be A listing of significant beneficial and adverse impacts and
specification of controversial issues.
Co A listing of proposed mitigation measures.
D. A discussion of the alternatives considered.
E. A listing, of the matters to be decided including required permits
and approvals and funding.
The Table of Contents shall follow the Executive Summary.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section of the DGEIS will provide a generic description of the development
program planned for The Orchards. It will be as-specific as possible given that
-2-
�x�1,9
• the building mix will evolve within the development program. A description will
also be provided of known or anticipated development plans for lands within the
project boundaries south of The Orchards.
•
Specifically provided will be:
A.
Project Purpose, Need and Benefits
1. Background and historical growth trends at Cornell will be
discussed.
2. The need for The Orchards project within the context of
historic trends will be presented. The need for other
projects south of The Orchards will be discussed as appropri-
ate.
3. The objectives of The Orchards development will be discussed.
The objectives of other development south of The Orchards will
be discussed as appropriate.
4. The social economic, educational and other benefits of the
proposed action will be presented as appropriate.
Location
1. The geographic boundaries of the project utilizing appropriate
maps will be presented. More detailed mapping may be avail-
able for The Orchards than for areas to the south.
2. A description of existing access to various parts of the
project will be provided.
3. A description of existing zoning of the project will be
provided.
- 3 -
,EY Y ,
0
J
•
C.
Design and Layout
The final design and layout of The Orchards area may not be
available for many years. The GEIS will present square footage,
types of use and will describe development program guidelines or
criteria for design and layout of the Orchards. Information for the
area south of The Orchards will be provided to the extent that it is
available.
1.
2.
3.
Total Site Area
a. A general estimate of proposed impervious area will be
provided.
b. An estimate of the amount of land to be cleared will be
provided.
c. An estimate of the amount` of open space will be
provided.
Structures
a. Gross floor area and type of use of structures will be
provided, for projects that have been developed to this
level of detail such as the proposed tennis facility.
b. Schematic layout and massing of buildings will be
provided, for projects that have been developed,.to - this::
level of detail such as the proposed tennis facility.
c. Conceptual utility plans will be provided.
Parking
a. Conceptual relationship
building uses and areas.
-4-
F_XI�A
of parking requirements to
•
as
•
D.
E.
Construction and Operation
10 Construction
a. An estimate of the total construction period will be
given and an estimate of construction phasing provided.
b. Potential development on adjoining properties will be
discussed.
2. Operation
a.
Approvals
A general discussion of the operation of each type of
facility under consideration will be provided.
1. A discussion
of zoning and
other regulatory
approvals required
to
construct
the various
project elements
will be provided.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the DGEIS will provide a baseline description of the environment
in order that an assessment of potential project impacts can be made.
A. Geology, Soils and Topography
1. Based on published surveys and reports, this section will
discuss the depth to and type of bedrock material: Any
limitations to development or opportunities for use will be
noted.
2. Based on published surveys and reports, a discussion of soil
types, physical properties, engineering properties and
agricultural properties will be presented. A map of soil
.5-
EyN�9
•types will be prepared. Suitability for use and potential
limitations to development will be discussed.
3. Impact on soil from past agricultural management practices,
including pesticide application, will be investigated and
analyzed. Suitability for proposed uses and potential
limitations to development will be discussed.
a
4. A description of topography will be provided. Detailed
topography at 2' contour intervals will be presented for The
Orchards. USGS topography will be presented for the remainder
of the project. A slope map will be made for The Orchards.
Significant topographic features will be described. Potential
limits to development will be noted. The topography of the
surrounding area will be described.
iBe Water Resources
1. Groundwater
a. The location and description of any aquifers or recharge
areas under or nearby the project area will be noted.
Depth to water tables and limitations as it may impact
retention ponds will be discussed from published
sources.
20 Surface Water
a. Users and levels of use of 'relevant surface waters will
be provided utilizing published data.
b'. Drainage characteristics of the project area watershed
will be modelled using the US Soil Conservation Service
TR -20 model. 51 10, 25, 50 and 100 -year return storms
.6.
r �
U
A
•
0
will be modelled to provide baseline information for
management of storm water runoff. Drainage patterns and
channels will be described.
c. Water quality issues of the poultry wastewater disposal
lagoon will be discussed and analyzed. Sediment at the
bottom of this lagoon will also be analyzed.
Limitations to development and alternatives will be
discussed.
d. Floodplains and floodways will be illustrated utilizing
Federal Emergency Management Agency Mapping.
CO Air Resources
1. Climate
a. A discussion
temperature,
provided.
2. Air Quality
of climatic factors including wind,
precipitation and humidity will be
a. National and state air quality standards for the project
area will be listed and the existing levels, based on
available data, and compliance status for each pollutant
noted. Existing pollutant sources and sensitive
receptors will be noted.
D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1. Vegetation
a. Vegetation types in the project area will be listed by
species and mapped based on field investigation. Site
_7_
1. �XN �
•
44
•
E
vegetation will 'be characterized by species presence and
abundance, age, size, distribution, dominance, community
types, value as wildlife habitat and productivity. Any
unique, rare, threatened or endangered species will be
noted.
2. Fish and Wildlife
a. Fish and wildlife species in the project area will be
listed based on
and abundance, d
will be discuss
endangered speci
3. Wetlands
fiel
istr
ed.
es H
d invest
ibution,
Any un
ill be n
igation. Species presence
dominance and productivity
ique, rare, threatened or
oted.
a. Wetland areas will be delineated and mapped utilizing
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria. Wetlands meeting
criteria for regulation by the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation will also be delineated and
mapped. . Wetland characteristics including acreage,
vegetative cover, classification and benefits will be
discussed.
Agricultural Resources
1. Soils
a. Soils will be listed -by .name, slope and soil group
ranking within the NYS Land Classification System.' The
number of acres within each group and the location on a
map will be provided.
2. Agricultural Land Management System
- 8 -
�
A N A
ry
•
•
a. An inventory of existing erosion control and drainage
systems will be provided and any existing soil and water
conservation plans will be discussed.
30 Operations
a. The
number and
types of
farm and
associated
operations
on
and adjacent
to the site
will
be
listed.
b. Research and educational programs will be listed.
c. The type and proximity of agricultural facilities such
as storage sheds, barns, sorting and packing houses will
be listed.
F. Transportation
1. Transportation Services
a. -A complete description of existing facilities will be
provided. The description will include size, capacity
and condition of the facility. Descriptions of road-
ways, highways, traffic controls, site ingress and
egress and parking will be included.
b. The current level of facility use will be fully de-
scribed. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes will be counted at key intersections, the
vehicle mix will be reported and current problems
identified and described. The following intersections
will be included:
• Caldwell Road and NYS Route 366
• Tower Road and NYS Route 366
• Tower Road and Judd Falls Road
-9-
)Ell //
C
•
n
U
P;
P
4.
• Judd Falls
Road (north)
and
NYS Route 366
• Judd Falls
Road (south)
and
NYS Route 366
• Judd Falls
Road and Ellis
Hollow
Road
• Ellis Hollow
Road and Pine
Tree Road
- Dryden Avenue,
Maple Avenue,
Ithaca Road and Oak
Avenue (Six
Corners)
c. The trip generation of the proposed project will be
determined and added to the projection of future
background traffic. The future traffic conditions with
and without the project will be examined to determine
the traffic impacts associated with the proposed
project.
Public Transportation
a. The existing components of the public transportation
system will be fully described.
b. Services currently available within the study area will
be defined and measures of current usage will be
reported.
Pedestrian Environment
a. Existing
pedestrian
activities
will be described in the
context
of overall
transportation.
b. Future pedestrian activities generated by the proposed''
development will be described in the context of the
overall transportation system.
Bicycle Facilities
a. Existing bicycle facilities will be described.
10 -
�XN A
•
W
•
b. Future bicycle facilities will be discussed.
G. Land Use and Zoning
16 Existing Land Use
a. A description and map of existing land uses on and
within 1/2 mile of the project area will be provided.
b. A description of existing zoning on and within 1/2 mile
of the project area will be provided.
C* The existing Town of Ithaca land use plan will be
discussed. The on -going plan update will be discussed
as it affects the project.
d. Past waste disposal practices on the site by Cornell
will be investigated and discussed. Limitations to
development and alternatives will be discussed.
H. Community Services
This section will present a discussion of existing levels of usage
and projected future needs.
16 Police and security services as provided by the Town, State,
County and Cornell University will be discussed. Manpower and
equipment levels and adequacy will be discussed.
2. Fire protection manpower and equipment levels will be invento-
ried. The existing and future adequacy of fire protection
services will be discussed.
3. Health care manpower and facilities provided by the Town and
Cornell University will be inventoried and assessed.
�xN A
• 4. Recreational facilities provided by the Town and Cornell will
be inventoried and assessed.
5. Social Services provided by the Town will be inventories and
assessed.
6. Primary and secondary schools serving the area will be
inventoried and assessed.
7. Utility services provided by Cornell and regulated public
utility companies including electric power, natural gas and
telephone service will be inventoried and assessed.
8. Potable and fire protection water supply provided by municipal
systems and private (Cornell University) system will be
inventoried and assessed.
• 90 Sewage disposal options including privately owned "on- site"
systems will be inventoried and assessed.
104 Solid waste disposal facilities provided by the County will be
discussed. Collection and recycling programs by Cornell will
be discussed.
I. Demography
1. Population characteristics including household size composi-
tion and age will be discussed using the most recent available
census data.
2. Population projections will be presented using published data.
J. Cultural Resources
1. Visual Character
Ip
- 12 -
� , Y
•
_.
•
•
a. The visual character of the project area including
Cascadilla Creek will be discussed and illustrated with
photographs. Surrounding roads from within the project
area which are visible will be noted. A zone of
visibility map will be prepared.
26 Historic and Archaeological Resources
a. Historic areas and structures listed on the State or
National Register and those structures with the poten-
tial for such el igabil ity will be located and described.
Local registers of historic places and structures will
be consulted.
b. A Phase lA Cultural Resources Survey will be conducted
to determine the potential for presence of archaeologi-
cal resources and the need to conduct field surveys as
construction progresses..
3* Noise
a. Existing noise sources in and nearby the project area
will be described and subjectively evaluated. Any
nearby sensitive receptors will be located and
described.
ve SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
This section will describe the potential impacts of the project as described in
Section III and on the environment as described in. Section IV. Impacts and
mitigating measures will be discussed for both construction and operation phases.
Mitigating measures will be presented for each significant impact identified.
The DGEIS will take a "threshold" approach to many potential impacts. For
- 13 -
jEY;
• example, traffic impacts will be spaced out over a number of years as development
occurs. The DGEIS will recommend the specific traffic improvements necessary to
mitigate impacts as certain thresholds are reached. For other impacts,
particularly those related to construction, generic mitigation measures
applicable throughout the life of the project will be proposed.
P-.'J
VI. ALTERNATIVES
This section of the DGEIS will present alternatives at a level of detail
sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmen-
tal risks for each alternative. The level of detail of the discussion will be
greater for The Orchards. The following alternatives will be considered:
,A: Alternative Design and Technologies
C.
D.
1. Land Use Plan and Development Program
Potential alternative land use plans and development programs
will be examined.
Alternative Sites
1. Alternative sites which could meet the project objectives will
be discussed. Factors considered will include the availabili-
ty of land, suitability'of alternative site(s) to accommodate
design requirements, availability of utilities, compatibility
with zoning and land use plans, compatibility with natural
resource considerations and accessibility.
Alternative Size
10 An. increase or decrease in project size will be considered and
discussed.
Alternate Scheduling
14 -
Ex Y / I
•
•
•
1 Alternate construction and operations phasing will be dis-
cussed.
E. Alternate Land Use
1. Use of the project area for other uses will be considered.
F. No Action
16 The no- action alternative will be considered, including its
effect on Cornell University's needs and possible displacement
of impacts.
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
This section will identify those natural resources identified in Section IV that
will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use.
This section will also present a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts.
VIII. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
This section will describe potential growth inducing aspects, including potential
increases in development pressure on other lands and various secondary impacts.
Specifically considered will be the following:
A. Population
16 Potential increases in population due to job creation and
consequent need for housing, education, commercial and other
support facilities.
Be Development Potential
1. Potential new development caused by expanded infrastructure
15 -
�y N /
C,
such as road improvements or utilities.
IX. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES
A. Use
1. This section will estimate the direct and indirect use of
energy attributable to the proposed development.
Be Conservation
10 This section will describe the energy conservation.opportuni-
ties'available for the proposed development.
X. APPENDICES
The following technical appendices will be included. Additional appendices may
be prepared as necessary.
A. References, Including Published Materials and Person Consulted
Be Relevant Correspondence
C. Traffic Study
D. Storm Water Management Calculations
E. Util ities
F. Wetlands Reports
G. Cultural Resources Report
- 16 -
5. /Y e- A
./ 1
Amendment to
Proposed Scope of Issues and
Outline for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
• May 71 1991
T-he- purpose of- this -- proposed- Scope. is -to- provide a- guide -to --the information
and -level- of- detail-to- be- ineltided -in-- the --Draft - Environmental-- Impac -t
Statement4DC; IS)- for- c- ertain- lands of- Cornell- •University —Tile purpose of
this proposed Scope is to establish a framework for information regarding
certain lands of Cornell University to be included in the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS). These lands are the area known
as the Orchards area.(Precinct 7) bounded by Route 366, Game Farm Road and d
Cascadilla Creek, an other University owned lands to the south bounded by
Cascadilla Creek, [lie town of Dryden Town Line, Snyder Hill Road, Pine Tree
Road, Statesville- Road; The City of Ithaca line, Ellis Hollow Road and Judd
- Falls Road as illustrated on the attached figure. -T1le purpose of the DGEIS is
to- present -a -plait -for- the - development of- the - Orchards over -a -20 year -time
frame - and; to- tlie-extent possible; -pri) vide- information on proposed
the lands- 5011 ill -of -the Orchards: - -- Portions of- these -lands -are
development-for
subjeet- to -u se- by-New -York -State -The purpose of the DGEIS is to present a
program for (lie anticipated development of the Orchards area (Precinct 7),
and provide information on proposed development for the lands south of
the Orchards area over a 30 year period. - 1'ortionsof- these - lands- are - subject -to
use -by -New -York- State. Portions of these lands are subject to use by the
statutory colleges and therefore projects on such lands are designed and.built
by the state university construction fund. -As -- part- of- tliis- process;- E- ornell -will
supply -to- the- best-of- its - ability,- available- information -on- state- projects- that -Tall
within -tlie -area - cover- ed- by- tile- Gil'IS. As part of the GEIS process, Cornell will
supply all pertinent and available information on statutory and endowed
projects that fall within the area covered by the GEIS
Tlie- level -of -detail -of- analysis - will-- be�greater - -on- t lie -0rcl m rds- paree,rabout
wliieh-- more-�,pecific plans- areknown;- than -on- the -lands- to- tlic�soutli- wliich
will -be- used -by -News -York State -The level of detail of the analysis will be in
more depth on the Orchards parcel (Precinct 7), where the amount of
cumulative development impact is anticipated to be more extensive than
areas south of Cascadilla Creek. The total expected amount of development
has not yet been determined. Plans will be developed and further refined in
coordination with the environmental baseline inventory and analysis
initiated through the GEIS, a State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQR) process.
The following information shall be included in the Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement.
I. COVER SI-IEET
The cover sheet shall" include:
A. A statement that it is a Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement.
B. The name of the project.
•
•
..
•
•
D Amendment to Pages 9 & 70
F. Transportation Services
a. A complete description of existing; facilities will be provided.
The description will include sie, capacity and condition of
the facility. Descriptions of roadways, highways, traffic
controls, site ingress and egress and parking; will be included.
b. The current level of facility use will be fully described. I -lie
existing AM and I'M peak hour traffic volumes will be
counted at key intersections, the vehicle mix will be reported
and current problems identified and described. The
following intersections will be included:
• Caldwell Road and NYS Route 366
• Tower Road and NYS Route 366
•.Tower Road and Judd Falls Road
• Judd halls Read (north) and NYS Route 366
• Judd Falls Road (south) and NYS Route 366
• Judd hells Road and Ellis Ilollow Road
• Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road
Dryden Avenue, Maple AvellUe,lthaca Road and
Oak Avenue (Six Corners)
• Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow Road
• Game Farm Road and Route 366
• "Forest ILome Drive and Judd Falls Road
• East Avenue, Forest Home Drive, and Thurston Ave.
*,Pleasant Grove Road and Forest Home Drive
• Warren Road and Forest Home Drive
• "Snyder 1 fill Road and Pine Tree Road
c. The trip generation of the proposed project will be
determined and added to the projection of future background
traffic. The future traffic conditions with and without the
project will be examined to determine the traffic impacts
associated with the proposed project.
Y#� /sq
i
Y �
•
P
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, Cornell University has requested that the Town Board
rezone its lands in the area bounded by NYS Route 366, Game Farm
Road and Cascadilla Creek from Residence R -30 to a Special Land Use
District, and
WHEREAS, Cornell University has an understanding of the need for
preparation of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (G /EIS)
that will include the area between NYS Route 366 on the north and
the vicinity of Snyder hill Road and Honness Lane on the south, and
extending from the City of Ithaca to the Town of Dryden, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board on March 11, 1991 has
M referred the matter to the Planning Board for review and
recommendation, and
WHEREAS, in referring this matter to the Planning Board, the Town
Board recommended that the Planning Board be declared Lead Agency
for environmental review and development of the G /EIS attendant
thereto, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board under Article IX,
Section 46 -a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, is empowered
to review and approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove
proposed site plans for uses within a Special Land Use District,
and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1991 the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
• proposed to designate itself Lead Agency for environmental review
for the above referenced matter, and has requested concurrence with
such designation by other involved agencies as required by 6 NYCRR
Part 617,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby designates
and concurs with the designation of the Planning Board as Lead
Agency for.tJie environmental review associated with the request by
Cornell University for the rezoning of the area bounded by NYS
Route 366, Game Farm Road and Cascadilla Creek from Residence R -30
to a Special Land Use District, and with the proposed future
development of University lands in the Town of Ithaca between
Cascadilla Creek on the north and the vicinity of Snyder hill Road
and Honness Lane on the south, and extending from the City of
Ithaca to the Town of Dryden.
STATE OF NEW YORK l
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS } SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA l
1, Jean H. Swartwood, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is a true and exact copy of a resolution duly adopted by the
of said Town of Ithaca at aI? meeting held on the / ,3 >_{ day of
1971, and that the same is a complete copy of the whole of such
resolution.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Corporate seal of the Town of Ithaca, New
York this day of � , 19 f/
WILUAMSON I AW DOOM CO.. ROCIIESIER, NY 19609 � _ ''Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca
•
F
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
MAY 7, 1991
ftaftwaftftftft
WHAT IS A GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT?
As described in The SEQR Handbook as issued by the NYS
aft Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Regulatory
Affairs, a Generic Environmental Impact Statement is.
An Environmental
or project -speci
more general or
a Generic EIS is
identification a
group of actions
action.
Impact Statement that differs from the site
fic Environmental Impact Statement by being
conceptual in nature. The unique feature of
that its broad scope aids in the
nd analysis of the cumulative effects of a
or a combination of effects.from a single
Purpose of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
The Generic EIS:
• a. accounts for the cumulative impacts, regional influences and
secondary effects of an overall group of actions or overall
program;
be allows for the evaluation of impact- related actions being
proposed by unrelated project sponsors;
ce sets forth conditions, criteria, or thresholds under which
future site - specific actions may be undertaken;
do provides sound environmental planning, particularly the
consideration of mitigation and alternatives at a time when
there is greater flexibility;
e. identifies social and economic values to assist in planning
and decision - making;
fe establishes baseline data for reference and scoping of
supplemental site - specific EIS's, thus avoiding duplication,
reducing costs and paperwork,
go abbreviates future project reviews by providing guidance on
significance determinations; and
he provides public disclosure of agency considerations used in
• environmental decision - making.
41 F /Y A
.t
REPLY TO DRAFT SCOPE
by ELLIS HOLLOW PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL WATCH COMMITTEE
May 7, 1991
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. There should be a full discussion of how much growth is truly required. We do not believe
that merely citing the historical rate of university expansion adequately addresses today's economic
realities and environmental values.
2. Any development plan must preserve the essence of those things we value most about our
lifestyle - our green spaces, our rural environment, our pastoral commute to campus, our relative
lack of commercial development, our own strong sense of community, and our love of the Cornell
Ithaca Orchard.
3. We are concerned about the future commercial development, and the current eye -sore nature, of
East Hill Plaza. We fear that acres of asphalt are looming on our horizon. We believe the current
Draft Scope does not adequately address this commercial aspect of the University's development
plans and we ask that it be more adequately included.
4. Given that the lands in question border on the Town of Dryden, and given that the current
development plans will have considerable "ripple effects" for Town of Dryden, we formally
request that the Town of Dryden Planning Board be made an involved agency.
5. We are concerned about the preservation of green spaces. We believe that the creation of new
facilities would foster increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and thus relieve some of Comell's
vehicular traffic and parking problems. To that-end, we offer to the Town of Ithaca,. the Town of
Dryden, and Cornell University, two specific proposals of our own:
A. The establishment of an Ellis Hollow Bike- and Walk- Way which expands both ends of
the existing East Ithaca Recreation Way,
B. The creation of the Liberty. Hyde Bailey Greenbelt to protect current green spaces along
Game Farm Road, to ensure a quality. environment for all citizens, and to link Fall Creek (including
the Plantations) to McGowan Woods and Cascadilla Creek.
6. We urge that the University recognize an important element of its heritage by retaining 25 acres
of the Ithaca Orchard as a working orchard into perpetuity. It should become an important (and
emotionally appreciated) element in the overall landscape plan.
7. Finally, we would like to see the University involve its new Center for the Environment in its
planning for the lands in question. The Center's self- described purposes include: engaging in
public service activities, problem - solving in innovative ways, and participating "in development of
a plan for the management of University activities in ways that *nimmize negative environmental
consequences." We can think of nothing more appropriate than having the University turn its
interdisciplinary expertise toward the challenge of Cornell's own development into the twenty-first
century.
Committee Contacts: Natalie Emlen (273- 6197), Anne Frodsham (539- 7378), Robin Seeley (539
7897)
Reply to Proposed Scope of Issues and Outline for the Cornell University
• Draft GEIS
submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
by the Ellis Hollow Planning and Environmental Watch Committee
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this reply is to communicate the collective concerns and ideas of
many Ellis Hollow residents as we contemplate the changes that may occur during the next
20 years as a direct result of development initiatives from Cornell University. Following a
brief philosphical statement, we discuss our general and specific concerns. Finally, we make
two specific new proposals; 1) for an expanded Ellis Hollow Bike- and Walk -Way extending
along Cascadilla Creek from Turkey Hill Road to the intersection of Judd Falls Road and
Route 366, and further on to Maple Ave.; and 2) for a protected Liberty Hyde Bailey
Greenbelt connecting Fall Creek (Cornell Plantations), McGowan Woods, and Cascadilla
Creek west of Game Farm Road, with an extension of the green belt to Ellis Hollow Road.
II. PHILOSOPHICAL 'STATEMENT
It is understandable that Cornell must begin considering the future if it is to retain its
reputation for academic excellence - a reputation to which many Ellis Hollow residents have
contributed and which they have enjoyed over the years. In this mutually fulfilling
arrangement, it is necessary for both parties to respect the needs of each other. There is
• much creative talent both on the campus and in the adjoining community. We seek
development "of Cornell lands that is innovative, aesthetic, minimal in its adverse
environmental consequences, and that prepares for the future without losing important
aspects of the past.
t
We in the Ellis Hollow community challenge the University to apply the same values
of excellence, committment, and compassion enumerated by President Frank Rhodes in his
recent address to alumni on the occassion of Cornell's 125th birthday as it goes forward with
its short- and long- range planning
prom for the lands currently under consideration . In turn, we
ise to work with the University with like- minded spirit.
We feel a need to stress that we value our green spaces, our rural environment, our
mature landscape, our pastoral commute to the campus, our relative lack of commercial
development, our own strong sense of community,. and yes, our love of the Cornell
Orchards.
Cornell University is a great institution of higher learning, contributing much to the
quality of life in and around Ithaca. We of the Ellis Hollow community cannot emphasize
strongly enough our desire that in its forth - coming proposals for development, Cornell
University plan to preserve the many positives that already exist in our living situations, as
well as address current deficiencies. We will comment on the scope of the DGEIS by
providing criticism of areas of the DGEIS scope which concern us and by presenting
proposals to preserve the rural nature of our community.
-� J
III. CONCERNS OF ELLIS HOLLOW RESIDENTS
1. Does Cornell need to expand its physical facilities?
• We would like to see open discussion of the question of how much growth is really
required, given current economic realities, as well as current University policy to decrease
the number of faculty members, and hold the size of the student body relatively constant.
Fundamental to approval of the GEIS is an assessment of the need for development.
Although the scoping outline suggests that the GEIS will discuss this need on the basis of
historical growth at Cornell, this does not appear to.include an analysis of whether the
extrapolation of such growth to the future is appropriate. A projected growth rate of 1% per
year (Campus Plan, May 1,990) seems to be at odds with statements from Cornell officials
that many units on campus are not growing or are in slight decline due to decreasing public
funding. -
For example, (1) an endowment campaign was announced by the University
President for the purpose of allowing us to maintain quality, not to grow; (2) the Senior
Provost has asked the faculty to accept a increased student:faculty ratio; (3) the Dean of the.
College of Agriculture has stated that his college is facing a permanent reduction in faculty;
and (4) several units on campus have had staff layoffs or been eliminated altogether.
While it is always tempting to assume that these problems will diminish in future
budget years, one has to distinguish wishful thinking from permanent fiscal realities. The
federal research support budget appears to be in a long -term decline. It is subject of
increasingly intense competition. No other source, including industry, appears to be making
up the deficit. The biotechnology program, for example, on campus appears to be struggling
to maintain industrial cosponsorship. In view of the fact that Cornell's work in this area is
• world class and its industry liaisons excellent, it appears that the willingness of industry to
contribute funds has been overestimated. We believe that a more detailed analysis of the need
.for, and likelihood of growth, incorporating national economic and social trends, is essential
not only for developing this plan, but also for efficient use of limited resources.
•
2. The future expansion, modification, and beautification of the East Hill
Plaza shopping area.
Many Ellis Hollowites have reached their "threshold" as far as the development of the
East Hill Plaza area is concerned. Our residents complain of the eye -sore nature of the
Plaza, its crumbling parking lot, its poor traffic circulation patterns, its lack of aesthetic
planning and lack of a mature, treed landscape. While we do not claim that the local
shopping area at Community Corners is an ideal model for East Hill Plaza, the Community
Corners area does exhibit several pleasing "trends in the right direction ", including its low
physical profile, mature tree landscaping, and interesting angles created by the juxtaposition
of several small buildings., We desire local neighborhood -type stores in the East Hill Plaza
that will serve the needs of local residents.
With the recent expansion of Judd Falls Plaza, the intended construction of the new
tennis facility, the encouraging of Cornell employees to park at East Hill Plaza, to say
nothing of probable expansion to East Hill Plaza itself, we see broad acres of asphalt
looming on our horizon. We believe we speak for the majority when we say that we have no
desire to see the area in the vicinity of East Hill Plaza resemble the areas in the Town of
Lansing, adjacent to Pyramid Mall. We believe such sprawling development would, in the
long run, lower our property values, decrease neighborhood cohesiveness, and in short -
g/
make Ellis Hollow, Bryant Park, Belle Sherman, Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road less
desirable places to live.
In the Proposed Scope of Issues and Outline for the DGEIS, we believe that Cornell
has focused its attention on its academic building plans and has not yet adequately indicated
its intentions for its commercial holdings in the parcel south of the Orchards area. Even the
term used for the latter parcel ( "the lands south of The Orchards" ) reflects a lack of
recognition of the importance of the area. Mindful of our opening philosphical statement, we
believe the University needs to include a plan for the East Hill Plaza area that reflects the
highest standards of design excellence. A comprehensive plan for the commercial zones of
this area is vital, and long overdue.
3. The maintenance of attractive commuting routes between campus and the
communities east of the parcel proposed for development.
One of the wonderful aspects about life in the Hollow is the rural nature of our
landscape. That "country feeling" extends from E1lisHollow along most highway routes to
campus. We treasure these green spaces and feel there is more the University can do to
provide attractive commuting routes toward campus.
First, we urge the creation of a Liberty Hyde Bailey Greenbelt linking Fall Creek and
Cascadilla Creek by a piece of land along Game Farm Road (see section V. 2. and
Appendix).
Second, we propose that the land between East Hill Plaza and Game Farm Road
retain its character as a gateway to the Ellis Hollow community. We suggest that the large
open field now used for agricultural crops continue in its current use. This rural buffer
between the University and the Ellis Hollow community is essential to maintaining an
appropriate and visually pleasing transition between the University and the neighborhood.
We suggest that Cornell properties and private land south of Ellis Hollow Road
between East Hill Plaza and Game Farm Road should remain as is, to provide a balance:
between Cornell farm and research facilities and an undisturbed landscape. In essence, we
strongly urge Cornell University to preserve the current quality of the landscape between
East Hill Plaza and Game Farm Road.
Thus, we propose to extend the Bailey greenbelt from Cascadilla Creek along Game
Farm Road to Ellis Hollow Road.
Third, we urge the University to plan to bury electric power lines wherever possible.
This would be particularly desirable aesthetically, for example, in the East Hill Plaza area
and along Route 366 between Game Farm and Judd Falls roads.
4. The future protection of the Cornell Ithaca Orchard.
We.would like to see a discussion of the Ithaca Orchard's place in Cornell's history
and heritage. Many area residents have a fond and emotional feeling toward the orchards and
its sales area. We urge the University to give careful consideration to keeping 25 acres of the
Ithaca Orchard as a working orchard in perpetuity. In addition to continuing its teaching and
service function to the community, perhaps it could become an important element in the
University's overall landscape plan or come under the administration of the Cornell
Plantations. In this regard, we recommend that the University survey a representative
sampling of its alumni to gauge the depths of sentiment on this treasured Cornell resource.
5. Future plans for the Poultry Department facilities on Game Farm Road.
During the past year the University abolished its Department of Poultry. We request
information on the intended use of the buildings and land that the Poultry Department utilized
in the past on Game Farm Road, south of McGowan Woods. This should include
discussion of water quality problems of the poultry wastewater disposal lagoon. We are
particularly concerned about the siting of wastelands in close proximity to wetlands
(Cascadilla Creek). We strongly urge the reclamation of this area so that it can become an
integral part of the proposed greenbelt (see V.2. and Appendix).
6. Future plans for the lands adjacent to the proposed project, extending
into the Town of Dryden
• There is serious doubt that the NYS Game Farm will continue as an operational
pheasant rearing facility. We request information on potential future use of these lands, and
information on how and by whom they will be administered. Development at the very border
of the Town of Dryden will have ripple effects far beyond the border. We believe that it is
imperative, and we hereby request, that the Town of Dryden be included as an involved
agency in the review process.
7. Increased vehicular traffic caused by the proposed expansion.
We would like to see a comprehensive analysis and review of the topic of
Transportation, including a discussion of the University's new Traffic Demand Reduction
Initiative. We believe that adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities can actively contribute to
a decline in vehicular use (and the number of required parking spaces) as well as contribute
to the fitness and health of all community members. We urge that careful consideration be
given to ways to foster pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
8. Involvement of Cornell's new Center for the Environment.
We would like to see a commitment on the part of the University to involve its new
Center for the Environment in all aspects of planning for the lands in question. The Center's
self - described purpose and definition includes that it* 1) engage in public service activities,_
2) participate in development of a plan for the.management of University activites in ways
that minimize negative environmental consequences, and 3) be innovative, catalytic, and
problem - oriented. We can think of nothing more appropriate than having a portion of the
collective knowledge and creativity of the University turn its interdisciplinary attention
toward the challenge of Cornell's own development into the twenty-first century.
IV. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SCOPE OF THE DGEIS
We have assembled a list of specific questions and comments which we would like to
have addressed in the Draft GEIS. These will be found in an Appendix to this document.
This Appendix will be submitted to the Planning Board at a later date (no later than May 14,
1991).
V. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS BY ELLIS HOLLOW RESIDENTS
As the University plans for its future, so are we, the residents of Ellis Hollow,
• planning for ours. As appendicies to this section, we offer two proposals of our own:
,.7# /
1. To establish an Ellis Hollow Bike- and Walk -Way which expands on the
existing East Ithaca Recreation Way, so thoughtfully created by the Town of Ithaca some
• seven years ago. The relevance of this plan to the DGEIS is that it seeks to utilize a small
portion of land in The Orchards parcel and it seeks to contribute to a reduction in vehicular
traffic by encouraging a significant amount of bicycle commuting. There is great interest in
such commuting by Ellis Hollow residents but current conditions preclude it as a serious
option because the experience has proven to be so hazardous and frightening. The
establishment of an expanded Ellis Hollow Bike -Way would make access to the East Ithaca
Recreation Way easier, reducing the need to bike on major roads to reach campus. A
preliminary plan-draft is attached for consideration.
2. To establish a Liberty Hyde Bailey Greenbelt, a horseshoe of forest and
• agricultural fields connecting Fall Creek (and the existing Cornell Plantations) to Cascadilla
Creek along Game Farm Road. The founders of Cornell Plantations envisioned a horseshoe -
shaped area of land that would connect the gorges of Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek at the
point where each creek approaches Turkey Hill ( Hosmer, 1947). We propose taking the
spirit of this idea, but instead of the connection at Turkey Hill, we would position the
connection along Game Farm Road between the gorges. We would also extend the greenbelt
further to Ellis Hollow Road. We believe the Bailey Greenbelt would preserve the current
rural access to Ellis Hollow which is so important to its residents, as well as ensure an
important place for agricultural teaching fields close to campus. Green spaces add
immeasurably to the quality, of our lives. We believe the Bailey Greenbelt to be a fitting
tribute to a Comellian who thought so hard about the campus landscape and recognized the
importance of preserving agricultural land close to campus.
•
Reference
Hosmer, R.S. 1947. The Cornell Plantations: a History. Cornell Plantations, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY. 209 pp.
7* /
I I
•
•
Draft
May 7, 1991
ir
Submitted 'by
Ellis Hollow Planning and Environmental Watch Committee
'The great rural domains of Cornell are primarily for the establishment
of a worthy agricultural enterprise for purposes of education and
investigation. Any development on these lands should recognize and
conserve this fundamental interest."
Liberty Hyde Bailey
.. . •
1. Various University forefathers have had the vision of linking Fall
Creek (including the current Plantations) and Cascadilla Creek
together by a horseshoe -shape band of land extending north - south,
positioned . somewhere between the two creeks.
2. Whether Liberty Hyde Bailey was the original author of this idea, or
only a strong proponent of it, is immaterial. We believe it fitting to
name the proposed Greenbelt after this outstanding person who was
the nation's first professor of Horticulture and Landscape Gardening"
(at Michigan Agricultural College before joining the faculty at Cornell
in 1888), who was the motivating force behind the establishment of
the Cornell School of Agriculture (now Agriculture and Life Sciences),
who was the director of the Bailey Horatorium until 1951, and who
always gave thought to the lands and landscape surrounding the
University.
3. Green spaces are fast disappearing around the globe, and while it is
important that we all be concerned about, say, rain forest destruction
in South America, and environmental pollution in Eastern Europe, it is
also important that we safe -guard against habitat destruction here at
home.
4. Green spaces are important agriculturally, environmentally, and
psychologically.
• 5. As the University plans for expansion into the 21st century, we
believe it is important to set aside lands, now, that will function as
green "buffer zones"' to interrupt what could otherwise become
continuous, sprawling, urbanization, There is a-world of difference
between a city or town with continuous stretches of buildings and
concrete, and one which has purposefully interspersed parks and
natural areas amongst the man -made structures.
mfrn o,
To create a Liberty Hyde Bailey Greenbelt for protection of current
.. green spaces along Game Farm Road, to ensure a quality environment
for all citizens, and to link Fall Creek (including the Plantations) to
McGowan Woods and Cascadilla Creek.
- -it shall not necessarily be developed as parkland, but rather,
incorporate existing farm, forest, and agricultural research operations
much like they now' exist;
--it shall guarantee the preservation of Cascadilla Creek and the
remaining forested areas along the creek;
• - -it shall rovide for the reclamation, p ec amation, and .perhaps reforestation, of
the land south of McGowan Woods (currently site of buildings of the
former and now defunct Department of Poultry);
--it shall reclaim the former Department of Poultry lagoon as a
natural wetland;
- -it shall provide for low - profile but safe pedestrian and bike access
from the current Plantations across Route 366 to the lands bordering
Game Farm road;
- -it should further extend east of Cascadilla creek to Ellis Hollow
Road.
• ..
We hope presentation of this document will generate further
interest and ideas. In addition to contacting our committee, we urge
.interested persons to contact the Natural Areas Committee of the
Cornell Plantations, 'the committee currently charged with protecting
(and possibly restoring) Upper Cascadilla Creek. That committee may
be contacted at One Plantations Road, Ithaca, N.Y. - tel. 607 - 255 -3020.
•
�� , T• xiu: I p
Op
✓ ni✓i`:/'•'^ � � // � S� f J I {ice / /� / ��a ,I _ N O-� r =— -�
/ !.iii . //J \"' ,Ij^ • / / �\ .'Qp� •� p., _. •' ° , 3 .J 7n Q (I
{/ L .�•/ +V" .�-�I \ III \( \�1 "r�m� i�.�i Q • y b U�IRI Q-- p r
oJess
�l • r' ��,, �_'• -• /�1 ��'_�'IJ fIID �. 1 _., /o +_•, � •• •, .r..�r�. ,•�•.1. RRfN
`O� • : A J/ `/ °� - - /�/ a �`.G :O p L. a• J O� m O\ . • •lJ' I °°�r-
•✓ '."��' 'i %� .� � ''a O .. �g �.y ` � • \�� n .- rte'- ..
•.u..".- , / �-/ ' 1 ' Q , _ ♦ cn ¢• ice,;'
r•od a° - `i�! /,Q.. / .�! Y 'I� r., n . \ ion r
pq '
\ \\ \\ \ �• O - N 1� s \ ✓ �j
It
It
(n \, C i —.f ,�� � ., C II •
,� i ri /' - -rv+� _ \ ;•
It I �cb. 'l _ t 1 f - V G �`��` ✓i -/ /,{ �I % I ��"'
It rot
it
u —•
-/ �- � /J ..\ ` � \ - .'. % //% ;/ � it I • i � •l _ _ �/ ��� . .:, ` �, rp i I , �1��" ! `
_ \ ,A: :. ,' '�,� _... r\�;• -: ,' mil/ � 1
It
it
Oor
0 ' "� �O o� ^ , J < e� /,� a� 1 �� �w'�;'' X11 ✓ /Q -
�� ( <; ,:: :,� w �. •`�Ct_. ._ x".11. o �..'. - •J,� :'_ �,
)� "' '~ •— - ; � i , C'� ^lam � �� �� \�`'... � I � J � -„_�2_�, `�'.� :;-' /• _ � ,�
id
to
or
% /: f \' -.' \ �` — !fl ` "1 ^' • vim.' i `-/ \ _ = O '. —� \- i� - �L ' \� -'�,
t • ° A— TURKEY ti HI • -1�� • I •y + L!J- ''.l:. J 1 �,��
O V _ ..-- ._. /\ 1- a.• _ / lG / n J'� - �_ \� lid_ .�--- ../ l �� (J J�11 ..1 1
_QUARRY / RO ! .b - I i� — 1/ �. /. E'' ' �i2'JO--�i� \ \ \< \���� 0'•\ '�
IM 8/4
�,,..0 ` .~ i', O`o(I I' •(� \�\�' .� \� \. ..� ;�\ t
C ♦� -:y— �� �N� t..• / � /// 1L \\ \ \ �'� \ice \�� \.� � I%\
I(v - � /�/ -� /� /�/ � I I 'i �J /Q ` ^, 9`di i� lIr ��I /If � I��'�: / Iy •��� - -` �-� �� e \`l�•`•�\ \\\��-"� •
5��,'((O/ /�` p \ .� ��,..��^' .•'\��f / ,�/ ( / % I'� ^�� / \\ U l• \AGO\ • :�
/ /��C � �O• �u A_ ADS. A. �� � A � '���I_ � // ����� `\ �!^° �_ � � \�� v\ ��V�A �v ..v
;.
If
Idt
';. •`
It
���, 7y 1111 'C \ ,': Q I �i�+ - .�-�. -o ire `� / �•I �ri, % I,
It
i• ' 1 1' l l _ / I \ 711 ■ ✓A �J�� _ ( ♦� J JI I / ` t qm
�1. /�.�/ �� 11 t i. j- %� �;� �.. �\ •I to °yQ•' I\ s-.� //777777 :I \ \� /r`��/ 3
PIP
\.\ �,_ : / _ I o ml / c•o-; ���� o - r. " _ ter` 3
\\ � t
A 'lO 1' _; '-� V /� - �- ����• �. -�i -
1'' iii �..�. {.- /'•_/ �•;;.;1' �� _ _�,(^,.C♦ '~ •/
Old
7 -
t
C
•
May 6, 1991
Proposal to Cornell University,
Town of Dryden, and Town of Ithaca
to Establish an
Ellis Hollow Bike- and Walk -Way
Submitted by the
Ellis Hollow Planning and Environvental Watch Committee
of the
Ellis Hollow Community Association
Background
1. Cornell University is currently facing severe traffic congestion and an associated acute
parking shortage. Similar problems exist for the City and Town of Ithaca, at large, notably
during commuting hours.
2. Most of Ellis Hollow's inhabitants work in Ithaca and many of these at Cornell. The
commuting distance to the city borders and to Cornell varies between three to eight miles,
thus an ideal biking distance.
3. Using a bicycle to commute to work is at present a strenuous and dangerous
undertaking. Ellis Hollowers have two choices when using the bike: (i) To use Ellis
Hollow Road to East Hill Plaza and then to Judd Falls Road. This route has several steep
grades in both directions, and its ever- increasing and fast - moving traffic make it
undesirable. (ii) To use Ellis Hollow Creek Road, to Turkey Hill Road, Stevenson Road,
Game Farm Road, and finally Route 366, While Ellis Hollow Creek is generally pleasant
because of its mild grades, low- volume traffic, and gently winding setting, the remainder
of the route is simply hazardous. The very steep grade on Turkey Hill with its ultra -fast
traffic make this short stretch extremely dangerous and nerve - wrecking. Further on, the
366 traffic is heavy, fast, and unsafe. Coming to work, the bike commuter finds
him /herself tired, sweaty, and imperiled, instead of having had a relaxing and pleasurable
commute.
4. The beginnings of a wonderful and desirable walking, jogging, riding, and Ao some
extent- biking path already exist. It was created some seven years ago when the Town
of Ithaca cleaned up and surfaced the old railroad bed between Judd Falls Road and
Game Farm Road. This path is used by many people for pleasure and recreation, and
by a few also for commuting.
1
�t /
J
0 General Goals
To create an Ellis Hollow Bike- and Walk -Way for healthy, safe, and convenient
commuting to Ithaca and Cornell, as well as for pleasure and recreation.
- -It shall adapt to the gently sloping terrain of the Ellis Hollow drainage area,
- Wavoid steep grades,
- -keep away from fast, high - volume traffic areas,
w -and provide easy access to /from Ithaca and to /from Cornell.
Specific Plan
The plan represents an expansion of the existing path on the old railroad bed parallel to
Cascadilla Creek from Judd Falls to Game Farm Road. The key elements of the plan are
listed below in the order seen by an incoming (morning) commuter (see Attachment 1).
(1) A new path between Turkey Hill Road and Game Farm Road that follows,
more or less, Cascadilla Creek, and uses for a short length the old railroad bed.
(2) An access ramp to /from Cornell at or near Judd Falls Road.
(3) A full extension toward Maple Avenue, based on the former railroad bed,
giving access to /fro'm Ithaca proper.
• (1) New Path Along Cascadilla Creek:
Two variants (A and B) for the new bike /walk -way between Turkey Hill Road and Game
Farm Road are shown in Attachment 1. In essence, the bike /walk -way will provide,a
direct and logical extension of Ellis Hollow Creek Road. - -
Variant A would start at the Ellis Hollow Creek/Turkey Hill Road intersection and would
follow Cascadilla Creek on its North side, more or less, next to the Creek, but avoiding
some of its more extreme bends and meanders. After crossing Dodge Road, it would
meet and merge into the old railroad alignment, using two existing bridges to cross and
re -cross the Creek until intersecting with Game Farm Road.
Variant B would start like, and be identical to, Variant B for the first one -third mile,- i.e.
situated on the North side of the Creek. It would then cross over the Creek by means
of a new bridge, and then lead due West on the South side of the Creek, crossing Dodge
Road, . until meeting again the old railroad bed. It would finally cross back to the North
side using the second of the existing bridges (just like Variant A).
Either variant is about one mile long. Either one would be built at the edge of existing
agricultural (mostly pasture) land with minimal loss of such land. Neither one would have
any undue impact on existing wetlands surrounding Cascadilla Creek: no major removal
•
2
..,Z/ /
of trees or brushes, or backfill of pristine land, will be needed (except very locally for the
construction of the new bridge under Variant B). Two existing bridges will have to be
refurbished (re- decked) under Variant A, or one bridge refurbished and one new bridge
built under Variant B. Several culverts will have to be installed to maintain drainage of
low -lying agricultural lands. The bike /walk -way cross - section and surface would be
similar to the existing path between Judd Falls and Game Farm Road. Stop signs would
be erected at the Game Farm and Turkey Hill Road intersections so that the bike traffic
would come to a full stop before crossing; warning signs would be needed on both
roads to alert the vehicular traffic.
(2) Access Ramp at /near Judd Falls Road:
A short access ramp needs to connect the bike /walk -way to Judd Falls Road, or .more
directly to Route 366 near the Judd Falls Road intersection. This will be the main
commuting access point to /from Cornell. Two possibilities exist for this ramp as shown
in Attachment 1: (a) A short (100 ft.) paved ramp connecting into the parking lot of the
Graphic Arts building. This would expand a currently existing footpath. (b) A new turn=
off veering off to the North and connecting directly into 366 opposite its Judd Falls Road
North intersection. This ramp option would be about 500 ft, long and be built to the East
of the Cascadilla Creek crossing.
(3) Extension to Maple Avenue.
The bike /walk -way would be extended all the way, and on an even grade, to Maple
Avenue, by redeveloping the former railroad bed, behind the Cornell power /heating plant.
This 1/3 mile extension will form the major access point.to Collegetown -and Ithaca, in
general. Furthermore, it would feed directly into an already existing bike -path connecting
over to Mitchell Street and also on the former railroad bed.
Supplementary Items
-- Estimated costs: $150,000 to 200,000 (see also column by E. Flattau, Ithaca Journal,
April 30, 1991; Attachment 2)
-- Cornell estimated cost for new parking spaces: $10,000 /space
- -One or more small footpaths (with benches) can be laid out among the beautiful
meanders of Cascadilla Creek to make the area accessible to nature lovers.
m- Planning and financing to be considered by Cornell University, Town of Dryden, and
Town of Ithaca. Voluntary assistance to planning and construction will be provided by
the Ellis Hollow Community Association.
-W Assistance for future detailed feasibility and planning studies may be provided as a
community service project by the Student Chapter, American Society of Civil Engineers,
at the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University.
3
u
cc
3
cis
ow
r f .ZL
cc .�
w O
i
N
W
I p '
IW-
J
/'� /" ,�• i 11�'• / .. ta III ' 11124
'I
�J It — Attachment
1p
ao \ $
__ Js, • Eve `
UPI
�� _ _ \ • +f
Y \
It
\ . �.
It, POP
Ii;;' ,�� rig 'loo. � \~ `, . �....• ,\ " �,�' ~ r � -
0
l `) %AIL \ \ \_ � ,,• j;..
It
— t
r^ �� R�
_� o
ftttt
ttttItI
t tot
• �, L ir; �a�� It'`
pi
3 _ ?l1.
1,
i �••
1�
l�
(J N
PC
It
0
It
It
/ °• �.Aaadno
�" '
..1 r 1. f It,
�.
it tt
tt
tt m a0 - let
Ito
o _ ti f I,;
it
I rLi
I �r i I
r1... �p�•
It
It
a to
o •' (� all �' a ' i (ly'. _ BW trD _ — tI J e III T ,, ry? `� - — �• /...
ttt .6
tto
It
tt
\y V
II Q •- Ittt, toot
PIP
Co
Lt
Pill tt,
tqtt \ 1
4^0:
_ �. �� _ _' � PIN - ,...0 O'•
toes
_ -
3 �y m _ _.
it
Ott► - �" J`E.•- o� _� _ •'�.'
�- , l.J / � - -� � m w II � I � Imo-' '��,: /• -'`� JJ'��• '� ll '
z
-5--f
., .. 1 •.1,..11
0
•
Ll
B�c cle.0. Still r isk
y.
transit for
WASHINGTON — Though, I
don't think automobiles, bicycles
and pedestrians mix, they are
usually made to do so. And that
blend is the reason why I wouldn't
consider biking to work in spite of
the commute being well within ped-
aling range..
Driving to my office, I see
enough reckless behavior on a daily
basis to dissuade me from deserting
my steering wheel for a far more
vulnerable perch behind a set of
handlebars.
Nor am I alone in my lack of en-
thusiasm. While an estimated 82
million Americans own bicycles,
most of these individuals wouldn't
dare risk pedaling to their job on a
congested highway, even if the dis-
tance were relatively short.
A 1989 survey of Washington,
D.C., subway riders reflected this
widespread public sentiment. The
overwhelming majority of respon-
dents cited danger from cars as the:
top reason for not riding a bike.
Statistics corroborate that shar-
ing the highway with motor vehi-
cles can be very hazardous to a bi-
cyclist's health. In New York City,
for example, a bicyclist is fatally in-
jured in a collision with a motor ve-
hicle on the average of once every
three weeks.
Close calls can be traumatic. DaJ
vid Gardiner, 35- year -old legis-
lative director of the Sierra Club's
Washington office, was cycling>to`%
work when he was run down at an
intersection by 'a passing motorist. .
Bicycling has long been regarded-
an environmentally preferred altir
native to autoniobile `list wherever
feasible, botivief a -Sierra Club
and Gardiner llf;;::
Yet the legi3 director;' who
suffered a brok '* has grearanxi=
ety about returning, too bicycle com -i
muting. Safety, then, is clearly 'a
very formidable impediment for.ur
ban planners who envision greater
bicycle use relieving overburdened--
transportation systems:
The advantages of enticing large
numbers of commuters out of their
cars and onto bikes in densely pop-
ulated areas are obvious. Air pol-
lution, fuel consumption and traf-
fic congestion would all be
alleviated.
Here in the capital region; au.
thorities are attempting to establish
a bike -tilil network that would in-
crease the number of handlebar
commuters from 1 percent in 1990
to 5 percent by the year 2000.
Of course, the sharing of thor-
oughfares by cars, bikes and pedes
trians can work against others than
just bicyclists. Motorists and walk-
ers have been blindsided by biker&,
ignoring the rules of the road.
Separation may be the only way
to provide both the perception and
reality of safety needed to lure
more commuters onto bikes. Steve-
nage, a new town in England, built_
a pedestrian -bike grid entirely sepa-
rate from automobile routes.
City planners in Copenhagen,
the capital of Denmark, have taken
the curb lane on main arterials and
raised it halfway to the level of the
sidewalk, thereby creating a sepa-
rate corridor for bicycles.
But separation in its purest form
is often impractical for lack of
space or lack of money. Even the
D.C. area; which has enough van,
cant land to create miles of off=
road bike commuting trails, can't
totally separate motorists and bicy-
clists as they near the capital's
crowded downtown streets.
That's when ingenuity must be..
used to create at least a modified
form of separation. Road striping:
to demarcate a bike lane, different
traffic signal changes for cars and.
bikes, or perhaps separate traffic
lights altogether are some of the.
techniques currently available::
Constructing„ a_ path exclusively;:
for bicycles and pedestrians. came
cost anywhere from $50,000 to
$300,000 a miler
Are such projects an extrava-
gance we can ill afford in an era of
tight money? Not if they attract
widespread use. The long -term ben -.:;
efits from cleaner air, energy sav
ings;. -more fluid traffic flow; aad
improved health and worker prows
ductivity should ultimately dwarf.:,
construction costs.
Cars and bikes should be sepal:
rate but not equal in the year & =.
ahead, declares Tom Pendleton..
head of the District of Columbia's
Bicycle Office.
He argues that to avoid gridlock
in large cities that continue to
grow, it will eventually be nom!
for bicycles to reverse roles wit"}
cart and become the transportaded` Ko'
of choice rather than lea resort.
Fla w wow on wmrcnrtwMW
Attachment 2
The Ithaca Journai
Tuesday, April 30, 1991
.0
l�
U
,;:O\\ s M \ C�
CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
(Previously the Center for Environmental Research)
Corull lan f tergf ip
APRIL 10, 1991
Charter
• Center for the Environment
1991
Preamble
The Center for the Environment (CfE) is a University -wide, interdisciplinary
organization established to conduct and encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
activities in teaching, research and public service dealing with the physical, biological, and
social environment of man and with man's relation to that environment. The program of
the Center is designed to be innovative, catalytic and problem- oriented.
Background
Interest in environment problems has been evidenced at Cornell since early in its
history. At college, departmental and individual faculty levels, activities have developed
• related to this interest. By 1962, the need for increased cross - college interaction in at least
one area of environmental problems, water resources, resulted in the establishment by the
Cornell Board of Trustees of the Water Resources Center. Two years later the Center was
designated the Water Resources Research Institute for New York State under the Water
Resources Research Act of 1964 (P.L.88-379) which called for the establishment of such
institutes in all 50 states to promote a national program of water research and training of
scientists. In 1968, the Center's name was changed to the Water Resources and Marine
Science Center to reflect Cornell's increased activity in the field of marine sciences. In part
as a result of Water Resources Center activity, in 1970, the University joined in consortium
with the State University of New York to .establish the New York State Sea Grant
Program. In 1975, this consortium was designated the Sea Grant Institute for New York.
As a result of the contributions of the Water.Resources and Marine Science Center to New
York State, it was designated the Water Resources Research Institute for New York State
by the New York State Legislature in 1987.
•
CER /CfE Chaner Revision
The Center for Environmental Quality Management was established in 1966 by the
• Cornell Board of Trustees to further graduate training and research in environmental health
studies. In 1972, the Board approved both a change in the range of the CEQM mandate
and in its administrative structure, The CEQM was given the mandate to work in the broad
area of environmental problems, with an emphasis on fostering greater interaction among
faculty with these interests. At this same time a single Governing Board was established
for both Centers, and formal links were provided to the Environmental Studies Program of
the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and to the Program on Science, Technology
• and Society. In May, 1976, the Governing Board of the CEQM -WR &MSC recommended
' the integration of the two Centers into the Center for Environmental Research.
V
Since 1976 the Center for Environmental Research has undergone substantial
formal enlargement. The Ecosystems Research Center, a Center of Excellence supported
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was established in the CER in 1980. The
Cornell Laboratory for Environmental Applications of Remote Sensing, a unit of the
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering, was brought
under CER administration in 1984. The Waste Management Institute, with its legislatively
established New York State Solid Waste Combustion Institute was established in 1987.
• Programs relating to Biological Resources, Environmental Policy and Global Environment
U
are in various stages of evolution within the Center.
I. Definition and Purposes
The Center for the Environment is a University-wide interdisciplinary organization
�� 4✓�. established to conduct and encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary activities in
teaching, research and public service dealing with the physical, biological, and social
environment of man and with man's relation to that environment. The program of the
Center is designed to be innovative, catalytic and problem- oriented.
0)
t1 /
0.
i
. .
CER /CfE Charter Revision
The purposes of the CfE are,
to develop an 'environmentally literate' Cornell community through
improved awareness and understanding of environmental issues;
to offer students improved and expanded opportunities for academic and
professional preparedness for careers in environmental management;
to foster interdisciplinary and multi- disciplinary research focused on
significant environmental problems;
to assist the public and private sectors through expanded, coherent
extension /outreach efforts focused on environmental issues.
To further these purposes the CfE may:
-- foster research on environmental problems;
�� -- assist faculty in the modification of appropriate existing courses to incorporate
environmental considerations
-- initiate, conduct and encourage interdisciplinary courses designed to integrate the
biological, physical, social and economic dimensions of major environmental
problems;
�Pr -- develop a new Professional Masters Degree designed to prepare environmental
management professionals;
-- undertake research in analyzing the physical, biological, social and economic
systems which comprise man's environment and which affect the quality of the
environment;
-- develop and when appropriate operate central facilities that may be needed for
research and graduate education;
ro
3
• CER /CfE Charter Revision
-- foster the strengthening of the information resources and services of the library
in providing access to the proliferating body of environmental knowledge and data,
-- develop and disseminate reports of relevant research and other related
information;
-- engage in public service activities;
-- encourage the development of environmental extension/outreach activities on the
• part of appropriate departments not currently engaged, with an intent to foster a
• University -wide contribution to its Land -grant responsibility;
I,
-- participate in development of a plan for the management of University activities
in ways that minimize negative environmental consequences.
-- administer the New York State and Federally mandated components of the
former Center for Environmental Research, i.e. the Waste :Management Institute
and the Water Resources Institute, in accordance with those mandates, and with the
broad objectives of the CfE.
II. Organization and Staff
The CfE shall be structured with Institutes and Programs. Institutes shall be
formally established sets of activities based upon major problem areas of relatively long
concern. Programs shall be based upon subsets of the major problem areas, and usually
shall be of a shorter time duration. Initially, the Institutes and Programs of the CER will be
components of the CfE.
The CfE shall have a Director who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the
Center, responsible to the CfE Governing Board and the Central Administration of Cornell.
There may be an Executive Director and/or one or more Associate Directors to assist in the
operations of the Center. I -
CER/C!E Charter Revision
A. Director
1. The Director shall hold a tenured faculty position in a regular College or
department of Cornell University or be a senior scientist of the Boyce
Thompson Institute for Plant Research, and shall be appointed by the Board of
Trustees upon recommendation of the President. In recommending a candidate
for such office, the President shall report to the Trustees the opinion of the
Governing Board. The President shall determine the term of this appointment.
2. The Director shall be the chief executive officer of the Center and accordingly
shall serve as fiscal officer for both University appropriation funds and
external funds provided to the Center for purposes of various Institutes and
Programs.
3. The Director shall define the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Director
and of the Associate Directors.
4. The Director shall prepare an annual budget for review by the Governing Board.
This budget will indicate areas of expenditure, but need not detail individual
• project allocations.
5. The Director shall prepare an annual report on the activities of the Center to be
submitted to the Provost through the Governing Board.
6. The Director may appoint an appropriate body to advise on types and emphases
of Center activities.
B. Associate Director(s)
The Associate Directors) shall hold a faculty position in a regular department of
Cornell University or BTI , and shall be approved by the Provost, considering the
recommendation of the Governing Board. The Provost shall determine the term of
this appointment.
do
i
CER/CfE Charter Revision
C. Other Staff
The Center may participate in joint appointments of faculty with Colleges and
academic departments of the University. The Center may make term appointments
of non4aculty academic staff, including postdoctoral fellows and research
associates, extension associates and non - academic staff.
III Governing Board
A. Membership
1. There shall be a Governing Board consisting of eleven members to be appointed
by the Provost. The member�4hould'be senior administrators and faculty of
the University community with the vision to transcend the disciplinary interests
of the individual colleges and di cs ipline departments .
2. The Chair of the Governing Board will be appointed from among the senior
administrators by the Provost for a term of three years; the Chairman will not
be eligible for successive terms but may be appointed after an interval of at
least three years.
B. Duties of the Board
1. The Governing Board shall have the general responsibility for the welfare and
progress of the Center for the Environment. It "shall have the power to
determine CfE policy as to program, financing and staffing. It shall advise the
President on the selection of the Center Director.
2. The Governing Board shall have the responsibility for assuring that the activities
of CfE are consistent with its objectives, commitments and obligations.
3. The Chair shall convene the Governing Board not less than twice each year.
R
�
R
i
CER/CfE Charter Revision
C. Other Staff
The Center may participate in joint appointments of faculty with Colleges and
academic departments of the University. The Center may make term appointments
of non4aculty academic staff, including postdoctoral fellows and research
associates, extension associates and non - academic staff.
III Governing Board
A. Membership
1. There shall be a Governing Board consisting of eleven members to be appointed
by the Provost. The member�4hould'be senior administrators and faculty of
the University community with the vision to transcend the disciplinary interests
of the individual colleges and di cs ipline departments .
2. The Chair of the Governing Board will be appointed from among the senior
administrators by the Provost for a term of three years; the Chairman will not
be eligible for successive terms but may be appointed after an interval of at
least three years.
B. Duties of the Board
1. The Governing Board shall have the general responsibility for the welfare and
progress of the Center for the Environment. It "shall have the power to
determine CfE policy as to program, financing and staffing. It shall advise the
President on the selection of the Center Director.
2. The Governing Board shall have the responsibility for assuring that the activities
of CfE are consistent with its objectives, commitments and obligations.
3. The Chair shall convene the Governing Board not less than twice each year.
R
e
CER /CfE Charter Revision
4. The Board shall be empowered to propose amendments to the Center's Charter
when it so desires.
5. The Chair shall appoint a Recording Secretary who shall maintain a permanent
record of minutes of Board meetings and a procedural manual containing all
legislative actions pertaining to the operation of the Center.
6. The Board shall review the Annual Report of the Center Director prior to its
* ' submission to the Provost.
7. At its own initiative, or at the request of the Provost, but at least every five
b
years, the Board shall make an evaluation of the Center and prepare a report for
submission to the Provost. This report shall include both evaluation of
activities and recommendations for changes, if any, in the Center's function
and organization.
0
7
� X/
•
U
•
FHll i Forest Home Improvement Association
26 Apr 1991
To: Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
From: William W. Goldsmith, President, FHIA
Subject: Cornell Draft GEIS Scope
Thank you for inviting comments on Cornell's draft of the Scope for the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the Orchards area. I am writing on behalf of the
400 residents of the Forest Home community and the FHIA executive committee to
request several modifications. As you know, Forest Home is close to the Orchards, so
any intensification of use concerns us.
The specific parts of the Scope that we believe should be modified or clarified are
indicated below:
1. Extend and clarify boundary of adjacent area to be considered for study of traffic
impact and land use. There is no statement specifying how wide an area will be
considered. On page 11 of the undated "Proposed Scope of Issues," sec. rVG states that a
zone within one -half mile of the study area will be considered for "existing land use."
Please extend this zone to three - quarters of a mile and specifically designate it for
consideration of traffic issues on.page 9, so that the following residential areas will be
considered:
• Pine Tree Road
•Bryant Park
• Varna
• Forest Home
2. Con_ sider specific traffic harm to neighboring communities, Sec. V. titled
"Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures," on page 13, states in a
general way that issues in secs. III and IV will be addressed. This discussion needs to be
expanded to several pages, including a list of the items that will (or will not) be
considered. Please mention for specific consideration the "effects (including the effects
of traffic) on neighboring communities within the three - quarter mile zone, such as
Forest Home."
Town Planning Board from FHIA
me M
• 3. Add Intersections for evaluation of traffic impacts. In sec IVF, pages 9 and 10, please
add the following intersections for evaluation:
• Warren Road and Forest Home Drive
• Pleasant Grove Road and Forest Home Drive
• Judd Falls Road and Forest Home Drive
• Game Farm Road and Route 366 (and. if possible, GFR & Ellis Hollow Road)
Traffic at these intersections will be increased significantly by the project,
• 4. Improve the baseline for-traffic impacts. The base for measuring changes in traffic
level should = be Drojected growth of traffic without the project (p. 10, sec 1c). Such an
incremental approach would obscure the project - generated increase, thus giving a false
Lw and understated picture of its Harmful neighborhood effects, It is appropriate that
comparisons be made with eidsting traffic levels. Because our traffic levels are already
well above the comfort and safety zone, we observe, in advance, that the harm from any
traffic increase may be severe,
•
0
We hope you will require these changes and additions to the scope of the GEIS for the
Comell Orchards.
0
•
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Biggs Building A,
301
Harris
B. Dates Drive
Ithaca,
New
fork
14850
James W. Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
Date: March 27, 1991
To: James Hanson, Commissioner
Y!
From: Dwight Mengel, Chief Transportation Planner
Re: Section 239 Review - Cornell University Hasbrouck Apartments
Renovations
Telephone
(607) 274 -5360
This is a review of the transportation impact of the above project which
includes the addition of 92 housing units and 150 additional parking spaces. I find
the project will not have a deleterious impact on the local road /transportation
system. However, the additional parking spaces and housing units will increase the
Hasbrouck's total parking /housing unit ratio from the current 1.19 spaces /unit to
1.29 spaces /unit. This overall increase in the ratio suggests a review be made to
make sure that parking capacity not be over built.
The project's higher housing density and close proximity to campus makes
Hasbrouck more attractive for public transit service. The project should include new
amenities for pedestrians in reasonable proportion to the increase in parking .
capacity. If necessary, an equivalent number of:•.parking spaces can be reduced.,:to
fund pedestrian /transit amenities.
Hasbrouck is presently served by 5 bus routes operated by Ithaca Transit,
CU Transit and Northeast Transit. Only one Ithaca Transit route uses the
Hasbrouck driveway for ingress and egress from the site. Hasbrouck residents
must walk across Pleasant Grove Rd. to a CU Transit bus shelter on Jessup Rd. to
access the other bus lines or to continue walking or cycling to the rest of the
campus. Therefore, the safety and convenience of Hasbrouck residents
(pedestrians /cyclists) should be a high priority concern in the redevelopment project.
,
I recommend the following items be addressed as part of the project:
1. Increase visibility of the pedestrian crossing on Pleasant Grove Rd. by pavement
markings & pedestrian crossing lights.
2. Install a bus schedule holder and pay telephone in the Jessup Rd. Bus Shelter.
4ft
t� Riot-% i let/p,10V
t a
T.
0
K+
t
James W. Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
Tompkins County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Biggs Building A, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive
Ithaca, New York 14850
April 1, 1991
Telephone
(607) 274 -5360
TO: George Frantz, Ithaca Town Planning
FROM: James W. Hanson, Jr., Planning Commissioner
RE: ZONING ZONING REVIEW Pursuant to Section 2391 &m of the NYS General Municipal Law
Proposed discretionary action: Proposed Hasbrouck Apartment Renovation Project (within 500
feet of municipal boundary), Tax map No. 6- 67- 1 -2.1; 68 -1 -10.1
This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and
comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county,
or state interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning_
Department, and you are free to act without prejudice.
However, not as part of the 239 review, we have made some comments on the FEAF and traffic
impact and would like to draw your attention to the attachments as suggestions.
Please submit a copy of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
,Or hh
Enc:
�X17o ,
�A
a Rec_rc•!ed paper
TOWN OF ITHACA
RING REVIEW MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning Board
FROM: Dan Walker, Town Engineer__ ="
• SUBJECT: Hasbrouck Apartments Engineering Review
DATE: May 3, 1991
Amount of impervious surface is increasing from 30% to 37% of
site,
Site is flat and minimal increase in runoff is anticipated,
K* - No major problems noted with existing drainage system,
- Will•need to check construction drawings for adequacy of
final drainage details.
A' WATER SUPPLY
•
Preliminary design report was prepared by Einhorn Yaffee
Prescott and dealt with phasing analysis for construction
The Summary of the Hasbrouck Apartments Water Distribution
System Analysis by the LA Group indicated that flow and
pressure is marginally adequate for sprinkler installations,
final sprinkler design must address marginal flows and
pressures,
Hydrant`flow tests indicate that the minimum NFPA fire flow
requirement. of 500 gpm with 20 psi residual pressure is not
available from existing water system within the apartment
complex.
The SCLIWC Transmission main in front of the site has
adequate flow and pressure, and may be considered for use as
a temporary emergency source,
Development of system improvements have been under discussion
between CU and the Town of Ithaca, and.the proposed
development increases the need to develop these
improvements.
Recommendation that the site plan be approved with the
condition that final .design of the domestic and fire flow
water supply systems meet health department and NFPA
requirements prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
4, XN rt
Hasbrouck Apartments Engineering Review
May 3, 1991
Page 2
SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY
Staging of construction will reduce actual loads for 2 year
construction period,
Additional flow from 92 new units at project completion will
have some effect on system loads,
Overall System improvement planning is ongoing and CU will be
participating in the planning process,
Recommend that site plan approval be granted with the
condition that Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued
r� for the 92 additional units until the Sanitary Sewer capacity
issue is adequately addressed.
HASBR001 /REVMEMO(05 /03/91) DRW/
xc: Shirley Raffensperger, Town Supervisor
Carolyn Grigorov, Planning Board Chair .
George Frantz, Acting Town Planner
John Barney, "Town Attorney
Andy Frost, Building Inspector /Zoning Officer .
XN