HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-08-04v
•
•
a r'1 'V
MW
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 4, 1992 t Y
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, August 4, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairpeson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker,
Herbert Finch, Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, William
Lesser, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town
Planner), John Barney (Town Engineer), Chad Eiken (Planner
I).
ALSO PRESENT: John M. Murray, Mark Stevens, Jutta Schmidt, Stephen
(last name not legible), Bonnie VanAmburg, Larry
Armour, Marty George, Larry Fabbroni, Paul Griffen,
Nancy Goody, Attorney Shirley Egan, Stuart Mesinger,
John C. Gutenberger, Ken Gordon.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :30
p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE-HEARD
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov
closed this portion of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS IN REGARD TO SIGN AREA VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR SIX
PROPOSED BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AT THE EAST HILL PLAZA
SHOPPING CENTER, STORES NO, 21 41 5A, 5B, 6, AND 7, LOCATED AT JUDD
FALLS AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROADS, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
62 -2- 1.121, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C ". CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER, JOHN
MURRAY, SIBLEY REAL ESTATE, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov opened discussion on the above -noted matter
at 7 :35 p.m.
Chairperson Grigorov noted, for the record, that everyone on the
Board had viewed the site and are in agreement with the size of the
signs. Mr. Lesser stated that, to his eyes, aesthetically, itsmakes
much more sense to have the same size lettering. Mr. Lesser stated
that the only comment he would make is on the Statement of Appeal to
the Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Lesser noted
that No. 3 on Page 1 states "Signs were clearly indicated and
discussed on the model and presentation drawings presented to the
Planning- Board, although there was not a specific discussion
regarding the exact size." Mr. Lesser said that he wanted to make it
clear that the design review process is not the sign review process,
and the Planning Board should not really be held accountable for the
entire review as part of the site plan
Grigorov agreed with Mr. Lesser.
y i`Y tr!
.a
approval. Chairperson
S
•
" Planning Board -2- August 4, 1992
• There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson
Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Herbert Finch.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca
Sign Review Board, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning
Board of Appeals that the request for sign area variances for six
proposed business identification signs at the East Hill Plaza
Shopping Center, Stores No. 2, 41 5A, 5B, 6, and 7, be granted.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Finch, Cornell, Lesser, Smith.
Nay - None.
THE MOTION WAS DECLARED TO BE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Consideration of a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in regard to sign area
variances at the East Hill Plaza duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPLETENESS OF THE DRAFT
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DGEIS) PREPARED BY CORNELL
UNIVERSITY IN ORDER TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A
PROPOSED REZONING AND POSSIBLE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS FOR A
• PORTION OF AN 826 -ACRE TRACT OF LAND BOUNDED BY ROUTE -366 AND SNYDER
HILL ROAD, GAME FARM ROAD, AND JUDD FALLS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT
R -30. NANCY GOODY, PROJECT MANAGER.
Chairperson Grigorov opened discussion on the above -noted matter.
Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that three members of the
Planning Board, Nancy Goody from Cornell, Stu Mesinger from the LA
Group, and Ken Gordon from Larsen Engineers, along with some of his
staff, met last Thursday, July 30th. Mr. Forman offered that it was
a very productive session, a very good session, a lot was
Accomplished, and a lot of cooperative effort between the two parties
that, hopefully, will show up tonight in what is presented tonight.
Mr. Forman stated that the vote on the document will be held on
August 18, 19920
At this point, Mr. Gordon distributed copies of a memo from him,
dated August 4, 1992, Re: STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -
"COMPLETENESS" REVIEW OF CORNELL EXPANSION DGEIS". Mr. Forman said
that Mr. Gordon's memo and attached 8 -page review will give the Board
a basis for discussion. Again, Mr. Forman noted that the vote on the
document will be on the 18th as it is hard to vote on the
completeness issue when it has just been received. Mr. Forman stated
that with the positive working session held with Cornell last
Thursday, and the memo being distributed, there is a good framework
• for tonight's discussion in wrapping up the situation,on the
completeness issue, only, two weeks from tonight (8/18/92).
8
•
•
•
Planning Board
-3-
August 41 1992
[The referenced document is attached hereto as Exhibit ##1].
At
like the
this time, Mr. Forman
Assistant Town Planner
asked the Planning Board
George Frantz to make a
if they would
presentation .
on the
meeting.
South Hill Trail at
The Board will think
the August 18, 1992
about it and get back to
Planning Board
Mr. Forman,
Mr. Gordon said that everyone had met last Thursday to discuss
both the technical comments and review of completeness which Larsen
prepared, as well as Cornell's response to Larsen's D /GEIS
Completeness comments. Mr. Gordon offered that the report enumerated
many, many different questions and concerns that Larsen had as they
reviewed the D /GEIS. Mr. Gordon said that Larsen found, and it was
reflected at the last working session, that both parties are in
mutual agreement about most of the big picture items. Mr. Gordon
stated that some of the details need to be discussed, and one of the
reasons for that is because, once there is a resolution or some
guidance given by the Board to Cornell and their staff, it becomes a
legal record, and rather than encumbering that with a lot of detailed
page by page type of comments with respect to what things should be
changed in the Draft document before it is accepted as complete, it
was decided that there would be a list of principal concerns coming
from the Planning Board with regard to their suggestions for
modification of the document. Mr. Gordon said that, in addition,
there would be a list of both what is thought of as completeness -type
issues as well as what is believed to be more technical issues that
have been usually agreed upon by Cornell and Town staff. Mr. Gordon
said that everyone is in the process of trying to work through that
40 -page document and the additional 40 -page responses that were
received from Cornell and their consultants in order to work out a
lot of those details. Mr. Gordon said that where there are still
some areas of concern Larsen would bring them to the next meeting
(8/18/92) before the vote, and before a final recommendation from the
Board back to Cornell. Mr. Gordon stated that the other thing
discussed with staff and the Town Attorney is the need to set the
framework for the discussions about the D /GEIS that will continue on
-- the Town's understanding and position with respect to Cornell's
expectations.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if Mr. Gordon was talking about
during the process or after it is all done. Mr. Gordon responded
that Larsen has been asked by staff to do something more than what
they had originally intended to do; Larsen intended principally to
provide a report of completeness, but they have been asked to carry
that a little bit farther forward to kind of a draft response that
could almost be packaged into a resolution that would be the Town's
recommendation back to Cornell with respect to the completeness of
the document. Mr. Gordon said that he now was speaking about the
development of an official statement coming from the Lead Agency back
to the applicant with respect to changes that the Board feels are
appropriate to be made, but also with respect to understandings that
the Board has with regard to how the process is going to continue.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if that was part of the completeness.
Mr. Gordon replied that he believes that is necessary because the
Planning Board -4- August 4, 1992
• Board is setting into motion a process that has legal precedent to
which legally the Board is bound. Again, Mr. Gordon stated that, at
the present time, this is something that is being drafted between
Larsen, the Town Attorney and Town staff, and it will set out the
legal context for the review of the document and really lay out what
the Town's expectations and what Cornell's expectations are, so no
one has to come back months from now and try to determine whether it
was appropriate to make "this" kind of comment or a different kind of
a comment.
Mr. Gordon stated that Larsen completed a report; Cornell has
responded; the process is in motion for ferreting out what are
thought to be major concerns that need to be a part of the official
record; the official recommendations back from the Board to Cornell
with respect to changes in the document. Secondly, Mr. Gordon noted
that it would be in order to try to work up a list of things that are
mutually agreed on that will be changed in the document, which will
be a checklist. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if this was separate
from the future technical review about things. Mr. Gordon responded
that he would probably include technical things on which there is
agreement -- if there are still some technical issues to be
addressed, then those would be included, but Larsen does not want to,
since Cornell and their consultants have invested a lot of time and
effort responding to the Town's specific comments. Mr. Gordon stated
that Cornell has acknowledged they are going to make a lot of, what
they consider, technical changes now because, in the end, they are
• very likely to be included in the document and really improve its
quality and utility. Mr. Gordon stated that the completeness
recommendations will be comming from the Planning Board, along with
some mutual understandings between the parties as to how the process
will continue - -- the working relationships and the assumptions. Mr.
Gordon said that there will also be prepared kind of a side document
that sets out, between Larsen, Cornell and their consultants,
understandings to date. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the things
Cornell agrees with right away are going to be in the document, but
separately. Mr. Gordon replied, yes, they will be separate.
Chairperson Grigorov wondered if she were correct in that Larsen
is adding some things to the completeness review with agreement of
Cornell and the LA Group. Mr. Gordon answered, yes, some things are
being identified now that were mutually agreed upon. Mr. Gordon
offered that Cornell responded to the report -- the report included a
lot of issues that were both completeness and technical.
Mr. Gordon said that before the Board is a "Status Report and
Recommendations -- "Completeness" Review of Cornell Expansion DGEIS",
and a "Draft Cornell Southeast Expansion DGEIS Review for
Completeness ". The second document referenced is attached hereto as
Exhibit #2. Mr. Gordon reiterated that a process was initiated at
last week's meeting for the staff and consultants to work together to
begin to resolve the principal issues and get to the point where both
• groups are comfortable with recommendations that are being made. Mr.
Gordon said that there is some legal precedent with respect to the
formality of the action such that there ought to be a kind of a
• Planning Board -5- August 4, 1992
• report, a side document, that sets forth the Town's understanding of
the process.
Attorney Egan addressed the Board and wondered if everyone was
as lost as she is right now about this issue. Attorney Egan stated
that she has no problem with what Mr. Gordon is talking about with
the list of principal concerns; no difficulty understanding the list
of the item by item completeness -type things, even including the more
technical ones, because Cornell's consultants assure them that if a
disk is opened up to that page of the report to make one type of
change it is just as easy to make another type of change on the same
page. Attorney Egan said that what has her a little mystified is
that she is not following what Mr. Gordon is saying about some kind
of an agreement that is to be a prerequisite to the completeness,
adding that she does not understand what the draft of a statement is
having to do with understandings, having to do with the legal
context, and asking if this is to be a restatement of the law
governing this. Attorney Egan did not see that Cornell should have
to pay for that, and asked if this is to be something other than what
is called for or appropriate at this stage, which is, after all, only
completeness review right now. Attorney Egan reiterated that she was
mystified.
Attorney Barney responded that there is a program here that is
operating in kind of a nebulous area, because it is being said that
the underpinning of the whole process is, in effect, an application
to rezone, but that is all that was said, it has not been said rezone
to what, what parameters, what requirements, what limitations are
going to be there; normally those would be there, because that is
what the environmental impact statement would react to -- if the
building is set too close to the gorge that is one set of
environmental impacts; if it is set 3000 feet away from the gorge it
is a little different. Attorney Barney commented that he thought Mr.
Gordon was alluding to some kind of an understanding that out of this
process, because it is started in somewhat of a nebulous area, that
neither Cornell nor the Town would be locked into some kind of rights
or obligations when everyone comes out of this process. Attorney
Barney stated that one of his concerns is that as specific projects
come in the door he did not want somebody to wave at the Town a GEIS
based upon something that nobody yet has really clearly defined, and
say, now, I'm sorry, you cannot look at how the traffic from this
site - specific project impacts the area because that has already been
done in the GEIS. Attorney Barney stated that there needs to be some
sort of understanding that going into this it is being done as a
tool, a tool that, hopefully, everyone will find useful, but it is
not a tool that is going to be used as a weapon, adding that the Town
is concerned about getting a document that will provide information
when site - specific projects come in the door and which may minimize
or obviate completely the need for further studies. Attorney Barney
commented that he did not think there was a feeling that there would
be a guarantee that that will necessarily happen. Attorney Egan
• responded that she understands that, but she would ask, in the
example Attorney Barney gave, if, indeed, traffic were adequately
addressed to have covered the site - specific, then would the Town
Planning Board -6- August 4, 1992
• still be counseling clients that they could not. use the GEIS.
Attorney Barney responded, absolutely not; he was not saying that,
nor does he want to get into a situation where he is arguing in front
of a former Cornell legal counsel that Cornell has adequately
produced this already, and as a matter of law the Town has now been
precluded from looking at traffic situations -- that the
understanding needed going in is -- what use is this document going
to be put to, commenting that he views it as a resource -- a lot of
work has gone into it; a lot of information is being supplied for its
JF
a lot of discussion and analysis, and, hopefully, it is those kinds
of things which would not have to be duplicated again, in a site -
specific application, but if the Planning Board at that time felt
that they wanted some item of environmental examination made, it may
have been, at least in some part or other, incorporated in, or a part
of, the GEIS. Mr. Mesinger stated that Cornell has agreed to draft a
section in the revised document that addresses how it will be used in
future reviews, and it is essentially exactly what they just said;
in the event that a project comes up and it falls within the
parameters and analyses outline and document, and conditions have not
changed and the document recommends certain mitigations, a project
should be able to go forward provided that it does the things that
the document says it should do, but if there are new facts or
conditions, traffic is different from when it was analyzed in the
document and material circumstances have changed, then the Planning
Board has the ability to look at those aspects again. Board Member
Lesser commented that quite different things are being said.
• At this point, Attorney Egan stated that she thought she was
hearing that this document had to be agreedto before the vote was
taken in two weeks. Attorney Barney responded that it probably
should be for this reason -- to analyze whether the draft statement
is complete or not one really needs to know complete with reference
to what and for what purpose. Attorney Barney stated that if the
understanding is common as to where this is going, the document can
be complete without getting into too much detail on what the proposed
action is, but if everyone is not in sync on that, he is looking at
Cornell telling him in two or three months after the public comment
period that there are going to be findings that say that these
parameters are established and if the project falls within these
parameters, the Town has now, in effect, precluded further
environmental review on any of the issues discussed in the GEIS,
then, from the Town's standpoint, they have to have a lot more
definiteness and specificity as to the basic underlying project.
Attorney Barney said that given the fact that we are dealing with
something that is quite nebulous he does not know what one may want
to say when a site - specific project comes in, adding that he cannot
sit here with so much forethought to dream up every possible
contingency that might occur. Chairperson Grigorov said that if a
contingency occurs then that would be a change. Attorney Barney
responded, not necessarily, adding, until one knows what is being
talked about, how can one say what is agreed to? Mr. Mesinger
• commented that it seemed to him that the result of the whole process
is that the Planning Board would draft a set of findings, that is,
probably when the Planning Board is satisfied and going to set forth
• Planning Board -7- August 4, 1992
some fairly specific parameters because they are satisfied with
those, and if they are not satisifed with certain parameters they
will say that as well. Mr. Mesinger commented that it cannot be
agreed up front that the whole thing is swishy and Cornell really has
no rights from the Town's point of view or that Cornell has the right
after they have gone through the whole process to build everything
without further review -- the point of the process is to define what
the Town is going to allow to occur because the Town is confident
that there is no need for further review; what is not going to be
allowed to occur, unless there is future review and what the
conditions are -- that is what Cornell is trying to be establish.
Mr. Mesinger stated his concern that there now appears to have to be
some other document agreed to before findings, because that clearly
is not a part of the Completeness process. Mr. Mesinger stated that
Cornell had submitted a document and are now well past the timeframe
to have a response from the Town -- everyone is working very well and
he did not see any reason within the next week that both parties
won't agree -- it seems to him that on the 18th the Town has an
obligation, assuming that Cornell agrees, to vote on it -- if there
is not an agreement then arbitrate -- that is where the process is
right now. Mr. Mesinger said that Cornell is very concerned about
the notion that there is some other kind of agreement. Attorney
Barney responded that it is not an agreement; it really is saying.
what is it that Cornell is asking to review the environmental impacts
of? Mr. Lesser commented that the preceding meeting (7/21/92) was
described as "Description of the Proposed Action ", and it was his
understanding that this kind of discussion was to be included in
that. Mr. Mesinger responded, yes, adding, Cornell wants to address
that point, because Cornell does not feel it is adequately addressed
in this document, so as a Completeness item Cornell agrees to address
it, but, remember, this is a draft document and people are going to
respond to the words that Cornell writes. Mr. Mesinger, referring to
the Completeness issue, stated that the Town has not really told
Cornell how they expect the document to be used in the future,
suggesting that we now go and revise the document and attempt to
address that issue, adding that the process should not be held up by
trying to decide what that is right now. Mr. Gordon responded that
he did not think anyone was asking or even inferring that the process
will be held up; everyone keeps using the word process, process,
process, and he does not think that process has been defined -- it
might be in your mind, it might be in my mind now, but each one might
have different ideas, so the major intent of this is to lay out the
process, so, again, in two months or three months when Cornell comes
back the same things will not be argued, and there is a context for
discussions over the next couple of months that will give direction.
Mr. Gordon stated that he did not not want to encumber the meeting
tonight by putting those forward; he could have put a draft out, but
purposely did not because at this point there something on the table,
which is a document that is being asked to be reviewed for
completeness. Mr. Gordon indicated to the Board that he has been
asked to assist in putting together something that will be used by
the Planning Board, and used by the Town as a guide for future
projects it is not part of the Completeness stage; it is a
separate part that the Board does not have to think about right now.
Planning Board -8- August 4, 1992
• Attorney Barney wondered how one could determine whether
something is complete if one does not know what is being talked
about. Chairperson Grigorov commented that completeness means -- did
you address this, not, did you do it correctly. Mr. Forman responded
that it does not mean everyone concurs, all it means is that it is
adequate for public review. Mr. Forman stated that, most assuredly,
an agreement has to be reached between the Town and Cornell; at some
point the Town is going to have to sit down with Cornell and agree on
how the GEIS is going to be used long -term. Mr. Gordon noted that
this is a very peculiar process in that (1), it is generic -- that
sets a whole different set of standards and expectations -- a generic
impact statement in this context is like pre - planning; it is supposed
to be setting out some guidelines for future action. Mr. Gordon
noted that also there is not a defined program, most times when a
GEIS is done it is done associated with a comprehensive plan or
master plan or something that is somewhat concrete -- what we have
here is some kind of future intent and a potential zoning action
the document is supposed to help the Town decide what the zoning tool
ought to be to facilitate the Cornell development program. Mr.
Gordon stated that, in his mind, something different is being dealt
with from what is conventional, and because of that he felt that it
is important to set out some mutual understandings. Attorney Barney
said that Mr. Gordon wants to approach it, in the form of an outline,
in the next go- around, as the purpose on how he sees the document
used, and the Board can look at that and say -- well, maybe we don't
agree with that as a purpose or we feel that, if, indeed, that is the
• purpose one wants to use it for, the document is not complete enough;
that's fine; we can do it that way. Attorney Barney said that he
thinks it would be to everybody's advantage to really start right now
in trying to come up with a kind of mutual understanding as to what
the purpose is going to be, because that influences the advice that
Ken Gordon, Floyd Forman, Dan Walker, and himself, give to this
Board in terms of whether we have a document that is complete in the
context of what we are planning to have ':happen with it.
Mr. Gordon gave an example of why he thinks something is
necessary. Mr. Gordon said that right now his contract with the Town
only provides for Larsen to deliver a report; it does not provide for
on -going coordination with Cornell and their Consultants to make
modifications to the document. Mr. Gordon stated that all have
agreed that the document's effectiveness will be increased
significantly if everyone can work together over the next few months.
Mr. Gordon thinks that that needs to be said; that, in fact, there
are certain things that are not being set out as a part of the
requirements for modification of the document, because it is assumed
that a lot of these things will be worked out and the document that
comes back will be much more acceptable. Mr. Gordon said that even
something as basic as that that says ' -- it is intended that Cornell
work with the Town's Consultant on certain specific issues. Mr.
Gordon said that is just setting out an understanding for everyone's
benefit, so when the document does come back in three months, there
• is no Cornell with respect to its acceptability. Mr. Gordon said
that will be writing things that the Town has never seen; the
Town has never seen the proposed definition of the action. Mr.
• Planning Board -9- August 4, 1992
Gordon stated that he thinks there are certain rights that the Town
should have in association with that to examine, for example, text
that the Town has not seen yet.
Mr. Walker commented -- we are so close together, but we are so
far apart. Mr. Walker said that he thought that everyone on the
Planning Board that was here two years ago, and everyone at Cornell
that was here two years ago, knows what the theory was behind the
whole process -- Cornell had lots of little projects, more on the
books then than they do now because of the economy, and the Town was
getting inundated by many small projects without any apparent
connection between them, although everyone knew there were
accumulative impacts for those projects. Mr. Walker stated that one
of the triggers was a plan that Cornell put up for their Campus
(Precinct 7 being the main focus of that plan), and that concerned
the Town Planning Board, Town Board, and Town staff, adding, it was
said, in agreement, that it would be good to put together a document
to evaluate potential projects and the potential impacts of those
projects all together and address accumulative impacts. Mr. Walker
noted that he thought the level of detail the Campus Plan.was at was
probably higher than the picture they saw for a couple of meetings
than what has been presented now as the potential development plan,
although instead of individual buildings it is up to a 4 million sq.
ft. development of a parcel of land which was 200 acres. Mr. Walker
stated that if a very general plan is put together as the action, it
could be as simple as saying: a rezoning for institutional use with
• some basic parameters. Mr. Walker said'that if the detail is not
very great, then, a very specific project comes in, he did not think
that the Planning Board, under SEQR, is 'giving up any rights if they
see something that they do not feel was properly addressed or
completely addressed in the original GEIS. Mr. Walker commented that
if Cornell comes in with a 20,000; sq. ft, office building, the
impacts of traffic, and the impacts on the other parts of the
environment, will be looked at. Mr. Walker commented that the Town
is afraid to say yes to anything, and Cornell wants them to say yes
to everything, but not really. Mr. Walker said that he would like to
hear from some of the Planning Board members as to their feelings on
the issue. Mr. Walker said that the same situations seem to be
happening over and over and over again, and that is very
frustrating. Mr. Mesinger responded that he did not think it is as
hard a thing as everybody is focused on. Mr. Walker agreed with Mr.
Mesinger. Mr. Mesinger offered that he would go back and write a
couple of paragraphs and explain that very thing -- Cornell has a
reasonable expectation that if they propose a building that falls
within the parameters and does not, in fact, have environmental
impacts, the Planning Board is not going to invent something and come
up with an environmental review. Mr. Walker responded that the
Planning Board has to do a review, but they have the information to
do it.
Mr. Gordon stated that the definition of the action is clearly
• important, but the things he was preparing to draft are really much
more basic than that, and they include that as one item right now
there is a very focused discussion on the action and the implication
• ' Planning Board
-10-
August 4, 1992
of the action. Mr. Gordon commented that the goal that everyone is
striving toward is to affect better land development in that part of
the community being discussed.
Mr. Walker stated that he believed, at this point, the Planning
Board's responsibility as Lead Agency is to determine completeness --
if they determine that the document is not complete, then they need
to list things where they feel it is not complete and that is the
goal next meeting -- to give Cornell a'list of things they do not
feel are adequately addressed. Mr. Walker stated that he did not
think any response is needed from Cornell at the next meeting -- he
does not think any response is really expected. Mr. Mesinger stated
that Cornell would want to reserve the right, in the event there are
issues they do not agree with, to say -- we do not agree it is
incomplete on this particular issue and,here is why. Mr. Mesinger
stated that he is fairly confident that that probably will not
happen. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if it was normally necessary
to agree on so much before the list of things the Planning Board
feels is not adequately addressed. Attorney Barney said that the
procedure would be the submission of the document, and, basically,
the Planning Board will discuss among themselves what it is that they
want in the document, and if it is there, or the answer is that it is
not there, then the Board would produce'a document saying that this
is not acceptable; it is not adequate because... however, in order to
make a determination of whether the document is adequate for the
purpose the Board has to look and say -- what is the purpose?
• Attorney Barney said that by doing that one runs the risk of coming
up to the vote on the 18th and saying - given the additional
material Cornell has put in there it is not adequate because the
purpose that Cornell has in mind is a broader or more ... Mr.
Mesinger interjected that one is not voting on the content. Attorney
Barney responded that one is voting as to whether the document is
adequate.
Mr. Walker said that, technically speaking, he thought the list
of completeness issue basically says that there is a problem -- the
Board could say that they don't feel that the action is adequately
described. Mr. Walker said that, at that point, Cornell revises and
comes back with a new description. Mr. 'Walker stated that everyone
is so worried about finalizing the process before the process is
done. Attorney Barney stated that he thought the objective was to
try and come out of this on the 18th with an understanding that if it
is taken back by Cornell because of the. comments, and the comments
are, indeed, addressed in a manner that everybody understands they
will be addressed, the document will then be accepted as complete,
but he is hearing that that is not the way it is going to work, but
the very substantial risk is run that when it comes back again it
will be found incomplete. Mr. Mesinger said that having gone through
the technical meetings he thinks that there is an understanding of
what Cornell needs to say -- he feels confident. Attorney Barney
conveyed that he did not hear that understanding, in fact, he hears a
different understanding tonight. Mr. Mesinger stated that he needs
to sit down and, in a couple of really well - drafted paragraphs,
explain what Cornell thinks the purpose of the document is and how it
Planning Board -11- August 4, 1992
• is going to be used. Mr. Lesser wondered if that would be available
for the 18th. Town Planner Forman replied that Cornell is not going
to give the Board anything in two weeks; what the Board will get will
be from staff -- the Board will receive a document similiar to the
one in front of them now. At this time, Mr. Forman cited the law
"the EIS shall be submitted to the Lead Agency which, using the
written scope of issues, if any, and the standards contained in
Section 617.14 of this Part, shall) determine within 30 days of
receipt of the DEIS whether to accept it as satisfactory with respect
to its scope, content, and the adequacy for the purpose of commencing
public review." Mr. Forman stated that it does not mean we are all
in sync; it means that it is now adequate for public review, that the
scope has been addressed. Mr. Forman said that in two weeks
t
• he
Board will have a list of issues that the Board has to say -- yes, we
agree with staff, and with the consultant, that this document is not
adequate for public review right now. Mr. Forman stated that staff
And the consultant had reviewed the issues with the LA Group ul
P on Y
30th. Mr. Forman commented that al stumbling block has been hit
tonight in terms of how the document will be used in the future
when the Planning Board will, later on in its findings, come up and
say, yes, in the future the Planning Board may require an
environmental impact statement under these conditions, or, as Cornell
said, there may be certain parameters where the Planning Board may
not be able to have an EIS if certain thresholds are not reached,
etc.; if we come to that kind of an agreement, however, he could see
there is a difference here that needs to be bridged; the question is
when. Mr. Forman said that the sooner an agreement is reached in
terms of the discussion with Attorney. Barney and Attorney Egan, the
better off everybody is going to be. Mr. Forman stated that if both
parties get to the end of the process and a very basic point has not
been reached, that is going to be a problem, and a big problem. Mr. i
Gordon said that his intent was to say, -- I need to prepare that for
the next meeting -- it is agreed that it does not have to be part of
the completeness findings and there is advice that there should be j
reference to some kind of an understanding, but it certainly does not
have to be complete.
I
Mr. Lesser, directing his comment to Mr. Gordon, asked Mr.
Gordon if he could help him understand better the Planning Board's
task two weeks from now, and that is -- the Board will be called upon
to make a decision that the draft material they receive, along with a
memo of this type, which sets out the incompleteness of this, will be
adequate for completeness
purposes. Mr. Lesser wondered if that,
essentially, is what the Board will be voting on. Mr. Forman
answered, yes. Attorney Barney said that, however, if the statement
comes back that the purpose for which this document is to be used is
different from what it is understood to be used and is
a going to have
greater limiting on what the Planning Board or, indeed, any Town
board may do in reviewing projects in the future, the Board may then
look and say -- some of these other items that, in our view of what
was going to happen, we deemed complete,'are not now complete because
•of the impact of that statement. Attorney Barney thinks that it
would be useful to get that agreed upon ahead of time so that the
completeness issue or the adequacy is really reviewed in the context
3
7
•Planning Board
-12-
August 4, 1992
• of what it is the document is going to be used for. Mr. Lesser
stated that he agreed with Attorney Barney on his position as it
seemed to him if nothing is done until the adequacy question is
resolved, and that is the adequacy of the description of the action,
there is a fundamental difference between whether or not it is
treated adequately in there in terms of a full discussion, and
whether or not the Board feels that that is the appropriate way,
appropriate action, or appropriate uses, it seems that could be a
fundamental question at a later date. Mr. Forman responded that that
is something that can be worked out over a period of time. Mr.
Lesser asked, what happens if it's not? Mr. Forman answered, then
the Board determines when they get the document back from Cornell
that something has not been addressed adequately. Mr. Lesser
wondered if that was an adequacy question or is it a more fundamental
matter. Attorney Barney responded that the list from the Planning
Board is based upon an understanding now, and if the understanding
shifts dramatically when the document is before the Board, then the
list may not be adequate.
Mr. Paul Griffen of Cornell University spoke from the floor and
stated -- suppose the whole process is stopped right now -- the Board
already has the data and all the background, then an EAF is filed on
each new project just like it used to be. Attorney Barney stated
that he is not suggesting that the Planning Board would request an
EIS on every project, he suspects when it is all said and done, the
actual use of the EIS will be the same, i.e., it is going to be a
• resource document; the Planning Board is going to look at it in the
context of each project that comes in. Attorney Barney stated that
as an attorney he wants to make sure that the Planning Board always
has the right to say -- yes, we'll go that way or, no, we want a full
EIS. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there were any way that
Cornell can be protected against a future Board which might turn out
to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Attorney Barney responded that
Cornell can come in with a very specific proposal, review it in the
context of that very specific proposal, make a determination in the
context of that very specific proposal, then the Board is bound by
it, and it cannot be arbitrarily changed. Attorney Barney said that
it then comes to his mind who is going to be protected against whom
-- is the Town Planning Board going to be put in a position to say
we build in and accept the document that says at each level of
traffic or each level of construction, if it meets these parameters,
that is the end of the EIS, 'or is the Board going to have the
opportunity to say no. Mr. Gordon stated that he made the
observation a while ago that, with respect to the resources that have
already been committed to this matter, it is going to take a fraction
of that to get the document to be truly useful in the rezoning to the
Board and Cornell, because at some point the Town is going to look at
rezoning that area; all of these issues are going to be revisited, so
this can set a framework, and it will for the context of that zone
that is going to be applied for, and for performance standards that
might be applied to it. Mr. Gordon questioned -- is finishing the
• EIS the end of the process, or is it the beginning of the process?
Mr. Gordon stated that we are technically very, very, close to
I
R
Planning Board
-13-
August 4, 1992
• setting a path to really turning this into something that will be
very, very, useful for everyone involved.
Mr. Gordon stated that tonight's meeting started out to be a
status report on where things were, and it was going to be a work
session with the Planning Board.
Candace Cornell
stated that
her newest concern,
which was
brought
up tonight,
was the purpose
of;the document -- she
would like
to see
that spelled
out better --
she always wanted
the action
spelled
out better.
Attorney Egan
responded that Cornell
University
agrees.
Ms. Cornell
mentioned the traffic study in that, in her mind
it is
going to be the
thing that triggers supplemental environmental
impact
statements in
the future.
Mr. Forman responded
that Mr.
Gordon
would address
the potential
problems of increases
in traffic,
and what that increase would do in certain neighborhoods.
Mr. Forman offered that
counts from the County.
the Town had received
Mr. Forman commented that
some traffic
there was some
disagreement from
Forman stated
were invalid,
those numbers
staff about
that he would find
adding, the reason
received from the
the validity of those counts. Mr.
out if, indeed, those traffic counts
for that is because when one uses
County which are a lot different from
the background
traffic numbers
that Cornell is using in
their study
-- they are
of the traffic
using 8 /10ths of
counts that the
one percent. Mr. Forman
Town has, in the vicinity
said that some
of Forest
• Home, are an awful lot higher -- the question is: is the background
traffic that Cornell used with lower numbers or are the actual counts
that the Town received from the County valid. Mr. Forman stated that
he had talked with the County Senior Civil Engineer and he felt that
the traffic counts that they had done from 1981 and 1986 were indeed
valid. Mr. Forman indicated that the issue of background traffic is
something that Cornell should look at again. Mr. Forman stated that
this is an underpinning kind of thing; everything hinges on it -- if
the numbers are wrong then Cornell has to go back and redo
everything; the traffic format. Mr. Forman stated that if Cornell
wants to address it later, then fine, but it needs to be addressed.
Mr. Mesinger responded that he thought everyone agreed on how that
was going to be addressed in the draft document -- that is an issue
that Cornell thought was resolved. Mr. Mesinger explained that
Travers is going to spell out their methodology which did involve
taking counts on the roads that are affected, and they seem to be the
most relevant roads in this case for establishing background roads
that is Cornell's position -- those are the most relevant counts.
At this point Mr. Walker reminded the Board that the legal
charge to the Lead Agency at this time is to make sure the lead
agency feels that all the issues have been addressed, the EIS that
Cornell has provided is not the final impact statement that is going
to be filed. Mr. Walker stated that there is a lot of difference
between completeness and acceptance of the results in the findings.
• Mr. Mesinger noted that he agrees with Mr. Gordon that it is very
likely within the next week that Cornell will resolve the list, then
come back before the Board on the 18th and say -- we are in agreement
'Planning Board
• on all this, if you
are in agreement except
Mr. Gordon will make
decide, adding that tha
now. Mr. Forman agreed
-14-
August 4, 1992
want to vote on this it is fine with
on one point -- here is Cornell's
his position, and the Planning
t is probably more productive than
with Mr. Mesinger.
us, or we
position;
Board will
to do it
Attorney Egan
stated for the record
that Cornell is,
right now,
in the time that
they have granted an
extension to
the
legal
deadline, and the
18th of August will be
absolutely the
last
chance
to come up with a
vote and a list of
things that
need
to be
addressed. Attorney Egan stated that
Cornell wants a
vote
on the
18th
if one covers
and
there will
with a two -story building the FAR is
be no more extensions or
anything
else.
covers half of it with a one -story
building the FAR
Board Member Kenerson
wondered about
the difference between
adequate and complete.
Attorney Barney
responded that
the term is
adequacy. Mr. Kenerson noted that the scope
is an official
action by
the Planning Board. Mr.
Forman stated that
the reason
complete is
used is because a notice
of completion
is issued on
the draft
document.
ratio. Mr.
Forman stated that, for example, if
one covers the whole
site with a
Attorney Egan announced to the Board that Mr. Mesinger would not
be present at the August 18th meeting, therefore, she noted that it
is imperative that any more lists and ''documents coming in to Cornell
have to be in their hands by the 10th, and, no additions after that
date.
• The Board, along with Mr. Gordon, reviewed the following
attachments.
Exhibit #1 - Status Report and Recommendations - "Completeness"
Review of Cornell Expansion DGEIS.
Exhibit #2 - Draft /Cornell, Southeast Expansion DGEIS Review For
Completeness.
At this
point, Mr. Gordon explained Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
to
the members
of the Board. Mr. Gordon stated
that FAR is
the
Percentage
of the total gross area within
a building to
its
footprint.
Mr. Gordon noted that a higher floor
area ratio implies
a
higher more
intensive development than one with
a lower floor
area
ratio. Mr.
Forman stated that, for example, if
one covers the whole
site with a
one -story building, the FAR is one;
if one covers
the
whole site
with a two -story building the FAR is
two; if one takes
the
whole site and
covers half of it with a one -story
building the FAR
is
050 Mr.
Kenerson wondered if this was usable
space or total space.
Mr. Forman answered
that it is total space.
Mr. Mesinger stated that he felt a lot of progress has been
made, adding that there are some ;differences in each of the
categories which probably stem as much; from mutual note- taking as
from listening to the differences. Mr. Mesinger stated that he
• noticed there are a couple of completeness items consented to by the
applicant that he felt were different, but they will be checked out.
Mr. Mesinger stated that the kind of things he would be talking about
r- ]
Planning Board -15- August 4, 1992
to the Board would mainly relate to clarification of what is asked
for.
There appearing to be no further comments or questions
Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion regarding the Cornell
D /GEIS.
TOWN PLANNER REPORT
Mr. Forman did not present a report at this time.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Forman asked the Board if they wished to have Assistant Town
Planner George Frantz present a report on the South Hill Trail in
addition to the GEIS on August 18th. It was the consensus of the
Board not to have Mr. Frantz present the report on the 18th. Mr.
Forman will inform Mr. Frantz.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the August 4,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
1992
•
•
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
IWCNhF
RE:
AUGUST 4, 1992
,e OYD FORMAN, PLANNER, AND PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF ITHACA
KEN GORDON, AICP, LARSEN ENGINEERS
STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - "COMPLETENESS" REVIEW
OF CORNELL EXPANSION DGEIS
Excellent progress has been made in: the two technical working
sessions that we have had with representatives from Cornell and
with their consultants. Cornell has acknowledged that the draft
submitted for "completeness" review could be improved. We are
carefully reviewing and discussing our July report, intent upon
making suggestions to enhance the DGEIS value and utility.
We have been asked to forward to the Planning Board suggestions
which could be incorporated into a "completeness" finding. Because
the finding becomes a part of the public record, and has legal
implications, we suggest that it be carefully worded, and reviewed
by the Town Attorney. We do not believe it is necessary to
prescribe page by page changes to the document, though the list of
recommended additions needs to be specific enough to guide the
writers, and check for conformance, when the document is
resubmitted. The format of our recommendations is geared
accordingly.
The foundation is a statement of expectations and assumptions
regarding the future review and processing of the DGEIS. Its
intent is to leave the Town's future options open. This is being
drafted in association with the Town Attorney, and will be
forwarded later.
In addition to the statement of expectations, we suggest that there
be a section of the findings, as required by law, indicating the
changes which will be required prior to acceptance. The list can
be abbreviated, if specific changes agreed to by Cornell can be
listed separately.
There are no clear guidelines establishing the types of issues
which are necessary to address before accepting the DGEIS as
complete, verses those required after the draft is accepted for
public review. Cornell has indicated a willingness to also address
certain technical issues. We recommend that a list of these
changes also be prepared.
The general "completeness" recommendations and document
agreed to by Cornell are enclosed for your consideration.
• of technical issues agreed upon will 'be forthcoming as
completed.
KEG:sn
changes
The list
soon as
n
LJ
•
I.
•
41(222)
COMPLETENESS REVIEW PHASE: ISSUES AND ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED
PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE
la. Describe the action. The primary action will be an
intent to rezone University Precinct 7 lands to
accomplish a broadly defined future development program.
The description of the action, and therefore also
discussion of its impact, will include logical and
foreseeable consequences of the action. Possible
concerns associated with these will include: concurrent
projects in Precinct 7, direct construction impacts
resulting from development within Precinct 7, and both
direct and indirect effects of future construction and
occupation. The action will also include discussions of
projects known to be within this area ( for sited example
the coldwater storage facility), utility service to and
through the area, and mitigations proposed for the
action. It is recognized; that other than traffic,
stormwater management, and infrastructure requirements,
the discussion will be limited to significant, beneficial
or adverse effects described empirically 'rather than
quantitatively, and only to the degree of* specificity
that information is now available.
lb. Description of the action (rezoning)' to include
discussion of types of items to be addressed in new zone:
height, density, floor area ratio, site plan approval
criteria, permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses.
2a. The geographic area of investigation will be expanded.
Maps will be revised to show development on the periphery
of the primary study area (Precinct 7) on all sides.
Data should be presented for this expanded area to the
extent that it is known and readily available.
2b. Regional and local impacts will be discussed, in addition
to the site impacts.
3. Include rationale for designating Planning Board as lead
agent.
4. Plans and studies of Precinct 7, including Precinct 7,
and affecting Precinct 7, shall be referenced and
recommendations from them which would affect development
in Precinct 7 shall be discussed.
5. Discussion of alternatives shall be expanded. The "no
action" alternative will be better described as a
baseline for examining future impacts. Requirements of
the present zoning code, including SLUD enabling language
will be included as the "no action" zoning alternative.
{
1
1
• Alternative land use control mechanisms, particularly
zoning options, which could effectively be used by the
Town to guide development in Precinct 7 will be
identified and benefits and limitations discussed. Amid
range alternative will be identified and discussed, but
not documented to the extent of the low and high end
alternatives.
6. Identify and discuss methods for determining Town share
versus Cornell share of improvements. Discussion also to
include, in a general way, the types of improvements that
may be the subject of cost sharing.
7a. The transportation section will be expanded to include
additional information about present roadway conditions
(condition, capacity, traffic volume) from existing
sources for vicinity arterial and collector roads.
7b. The discussion of impacts will be expanded to include the
effects of traffic on adjoining land use (Empirical),
particularly the residential neighborhoods.
7c. Past circulation plans, traffic studies, and traffic
counts will be referenced and pertinent information
extracted. This information may be used to expand the
• alternatives sections and identify other mitigations.
80 Include more extensive discussion of hazardous waste and
materials handling.
90 Include more extensive description of present noise
conditions and noise impact, particularly on lands
presently undeveloped.
10. Identify involved and interested agencies.
11. Include a discussion of performance standards as a basis
for establishing appropriate thresholds of environmental
impact which could be regulated within the project area.
It is intended that this discussion be placed in the
Alternatives Section, along with description of other
Land Use Mechanisms which could be utilized to guide
development in this area.
12. The scoping process should be discussed and the scoping
outline included as an appendix.
13. The discussion of alternatives and mitigations should
include statements which acknowledge the changes in law,
policy, and technology which may take place over the
• development time frame. Also state intention to consider
41(222) 2
• best management practices at the time of future
development.
14. Address whether off site mitigations can be implemented
through identification of potential constraints.
15. Outdated information should be updated.
16. Development intensity assumptions will be identified,
their sources referenced, and as necessary narratives
provided sufficient for a reader to understand and
evaluate the figures. The assumptions underlying their
utilization shall also be described.
17. Identify issues of community concern.
18. Provide enough information to sufficiently understand the
effects of the action.
19. Include recommendations for handling unresolved issues,
new information, and procedures.
20. Correct errors and modify statements which could mislead
the public.
• 21. Figures should be legible and contain enough information
for the reader to be geographically oriented.
229 Include reference to and discussion of environmental
capacity as it relates to impacts on neighborhoods.
23. Describe how DGEIS can be used in reviewing future
actions.
249 Add appendix of correspondence received (documenting
statements in the DGEIS document).
25. Modifications to the text will be reflected in the
Executive Summary.
•
41(222) 3
I W •
•
•
II. COMPLETENESS ITEMS CONSENTED TO BY APPLICANT
16 Summary of mitigations.
2. Add volume figures to ridership in transportation system.
3. Information on sidewalks and pedestrian /public
transportation interfaces as available.
49 Demographics of adjoining neighborhoods. Town will
provide additional information from the 1990 census to
Cornell.
5. Energy section. Revise for accuracy. Include
conservation techniques and use of alternative fuel
sources.
6. Identify the types of projects which might be constructed
within the District 7 and remainder of study area with
view toward project and neighboring area compatibility.
79 Expand discussion of matters °to be decided and requiring
permits and approvals.
80 Discuss in a very general fashion the way in which
projects on the Cornell Campus are financed, specifically
identify potential sources of state and federal funds
that would be subject to SEQR or NEPA review.
90 Improve the quality and detail of location map.
10. Add discussion of the processes of land clearing and
preparation for site development.
11. Table 5 will be revised to include the types of land
cover which would be disturbed.
12. Implications of the potential development on adjoining
properties in the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and Lansing
will be identified. Also include discussion of impact on
study area of proximate projects in these communities.
13. Typical operational aspects of the range of land uses
proposed will be described.
14. The implication of ground water to the effectiveness of
the retention ponds will be discussed.
15. Rare, threatened and endangered species will be
identified, with their locations and sensitivities.
•
41(222) 4
• 16. Pedestrian circulation requirements associated with new
development will be.discussed.
17. The names and locations of the residential areas and
important community facilities within 3/4 of a mile of
the project area will be added.
18. Discussion of Cornell's facilities will be added to the
educational resources discussion.
19. Growth inducing aspects of expanded infrastructure,
upsized utilities and roadway improvements will be
expanded.
20. Inter- campus transportation discussion will be expanded.
21. Blasting effects on water supply wells will be discussed
Of applicable.
22. There are a number of statements in the document which
may be misleading. Verification will be provided for the
following:
a. Significance or insignificance of noise guidelines.
• b. Reference to the "comprehensive" nature of the
development program in Precinct 7.
c. Expansion of the discussion on the purpose and
requirements for a generic environmental impact
statement. Inclusion of part 617.15 to be noted.
23. Add a reference to Cascadilla Creek Water Quality
Standards to the primary DGEIS document.
24. Discuss implication of the tile drains in agricultural
fields, and potential limitations to development,
including potential contamination from agricultural
chemicals.
25. Include in the description of the action the relocation
and demolition of structures. Discuss in very general
terms the environmental implications of facilities and
programs, these actions.
26. Expand the mitigation discussion to include mitigations
which are not project or time dependent: ie. water
conservation or landscaping.
27. Identify design and construction techniques to enhance
water quality. Include "urban runoff ".
41(222) 5
M. �
T
•
'041(222)
c )
i
28. Establish!l framework for ongoing University and Town
commitments to resolve future development related
problems within an ongoing comprehensive planning
process.
29. Include map showing endowed versus statutory lands within
the project area.
30. In description of existing conditions, indicate impacts
of present agricultural practices and continuation of
agricultural related research facilities. Site
beneficial and adverse impacts of continued use of this
area and facilities within it.
31. Identify ways to control access to and through Precinct
7 for future development.
32. Enhance the clarity and usefu�lness of Figure 10. Provide
better locational reference to roads and /or natural
features.11
33. Add copy of natural area policy referenced on page 51 to
appendix,,l
34. Include discussion of "tax issue" associated with state
owned lands.
35. Include discussion of a possible change in commuter
patterns ;resulting from the movement of .University
support functions out of the present main campus into
Precinct 7.
36. Reference; to, but not endorsement or impact of East
Ithaca connector road.
37. Include discussion of transportation development district
in association with special land use district as possible
funding mechanism.
II
38. "Cornell 'cycles" plan to bey incorporated into DGEIS by
reference
h
III COMPLETION ISSUES STILL UNDER DISCUSSION
I
10 The influence of truck traffic on area roads. Truck
traffic has been identified as being the primary source
of highway noise at receptors. Increase in traffic, in
general, is considered one of the most sensitive
if community issues. An unresolved issue is how to treat
truck traffic in the DGEIS 0I The concern is for both
construction related vehicles and truck delivery
dependent facilities in Precinct 7 and the remainder of
the Cornell Study area. Discussion would include truck
routing implications on internal circulation system.
2. The incorporation of regional traffic planning issues
discussedl' in the 1990 Transportation Workshop. The
intent is to acknowledge that 1,1 of the University
Campus is °one of many future land use changes which will
be influenced by and contribute to regional circulation
deficiencies.
ii
3. Consistency of figures with text, and correction of
apparent (discrepancies in traffic volume in turning
movement numbers.
4. Consideration of height Ilrestriction as possible
performance standard. We believe height restriction
should be examined due to sensitivity of visual
landscape. Cornell's position is that they do not want
to be locked into a height restriction at this time.
They want',leach building considered on its own merits.
5. Treatment,of hazardous waste site issues. Cornell agreed
to address hazardous waste site issues in the context of
project scheduling. We believe the hazardous waste sites
should be' identified and implications for future land
use, based on information available at this time, be
included in the DGEIS.
6. The discussion of the impactsiof the development program
on East Hill Plaza. DGEIS says that minor additions to
East Hill Plaza will meet the retail demands of
development. It also indicates that expansion to East
Hill Plaza will likely bel University support. We
maintain that the addition of 3000+ additional jobs will
create a need for services which will likely be greater
than can be accommodated at East Hill Plaza and future
additions !I will likely be more, oriented to serving the day
time worker population than local residential
requirements.
•
41(222)
6
•
•
7.
LOOP
9.
Discussion of FAR for diffe:
not just aggregate. Differe
Open Space Requirements fore
Discussion of conference /ci
This has special types of re
to identify and to assess
suitability.
More thorough
development.
respect to are
density versus
ant "types" of development,
tiate between FAR and Total
!presentative types of uses.
itinuing education center.
airements that are possible
locational attributes and
discussion of limitations
Intent is to ;provide some
as of the site more appropr
lower densityi uses.
•
41(222) 8
of soils for
guidance with
Late for higher
•
•
. .
, ee , /, / Z
DRAFT
CORNELL SOUTHEAST EXPANSION DGEIS REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS
it
Notes on meeting with Travers Associates Traffic Engineers
This meeting was a discussion of
Circulation report on the "Environment
(Review for Completeness)" prepared for
Board, July 1992, by Larsen Engineers.
of the discussion, with location refere
portion of the Larsen report.
David Stroud, Senior
Kenneth Newman, P.E.;,
Robert Curtis, AICP,11
R
Engineer, Travers
Travers Associat
Transportation P1
sio
Paragraph 1 - The concept of whether t
possible future alternatives that wer
traffic study, such as the "East Ithaca
discussed and agreed upon earlier, as
Associates written draft response dated
here for further understanding on the j
not Travers Associates responsibility
analysis or recommend the alternati
responsibility to become the leader in
Sensitivity to the previous controversie
is recognized. It was agreed that in
issue, reference and discussion of the
in the report.
Paragraph 2 - Reference to the "octopus
issue above. While not part of the stud
regional transportation concern
identification, and discussion of propo
improvements. Again, analysis and r
Cornell's project is "not the intent here
of key areawide regional transportation
have impacts on the study area.
:he separate Traffic and
31 Impact Statement Review
the Town of Ithaca Planning
The following is a summary
ices indicating the subject
Associates
er, Larsen Engineers
he report should reference
a the subject of previous
Connector Road" was really
indicated in the Travers
July 28, 1992, but included
ssue. It was agreed it is
.o provide a full fledged
ie, nor is it Cornell's
advocating such a project.
1 nature of such a proposal
terms of the completeness'
concept should be included
" is another example of the
area, it represents a key
that warrants general
;ed NYSDOT plans for future
!commendations as part of
merely the identification
issues that may or may not
Paragraph 3 - (refers to Travers Associates regional
transportation workshop of Oct. 29, 1990) It was agreed this is a
technical issue and not necessary to be 11 decided for completeness.
The Travers position is essentially as stated in their draft
written response. They feel regional transportation issues are
more appropriate for the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan
process than the DGEIS. The Larsen pos''ition is that the regional
transportation issues identified in this workshop report represent
the type of concerns that may be outside the immediate study area,
but relevant to the study area because they are important regional
traffic issues, that',should be included' as part of the background
• information regarding the areawide transportation system, and
would hopefully help,',the GEIS be a more effective planning tool.
Paragraphs 4 & 5 - [These relate to th
effects "in- between" intersections, on
and such things as intersection sig
Travers regards these as technical iss
regarding them as completeness issues.
not the appropriate 'document to recommE
alignment changes or solutions to s
problems, but that the Town's ComprehE
Larsen feels that if sight distance or
may be exacerbated by traffic increases,
in the DGEIS, and are a normal traffic
study. It is recognized that Cornell is
wide transportation ;improvements. Trav,
grades and sight distance is more appr
design of improvements, and therefore i
site design and not ,the general DGEIS.
As for the impacts on areas in between
the study area, Travers is uncomfort
nature of such an analysis. The standz
and examination are a lot murkier and li
analysis than the accepted methods
• analysis. The feeling is that no matte
conclude about thei impacts on resin
intersections, the ;results would be
subject to criticism. Larsen agrees w
but notes that manyI traffic impact re
these things. While it often falls int
engineering judgement rather than spe(
that can be documented, the issues rE
impacts that Larsen 'feels can't be excl
It was agreed that these issues may or
technical issues, depending on the Plan
the project scope. It is hoped the iss%
in enough detail, that they are at lea
board to make an informed decision. My'
worth holding up theljprogress of the prcI
they could probably receive appropriat(
technical review stage.
Paragraph 6 - It was agreed this is alll
offered merely for the information of boj
Board and Town Staff, to indicate
assumptions underly "ing the Transport
information used, and whether the
predictions could be criticized regard,
studies done in California, that ma'17
• promoting alternatives to the automobi.
here. Travers is confident they can def
their discussion of the issues seems fi��
e continuing discussion of
idjacent residential areas,
ht distance, and grades.
ies, while Larsen has been
Travers feels the DGEIS is
nd horizontal and vertical
.rstem wide transportation
nsive Plan should do so,
grade problems exist that
these should be identified
ssue of any traffic impact
not responsible for system
ers feels that analysis of
)priate. during engineering
rill be a part of specific
the major intersections of
able with the qualitative
rds and procedures of such
iss subject to quantitative
of intersection capacity
what a traffic report may
iential areas in between
subjective, and therefore
ith this characterization,
ports do at least attempt
o the area of professional'
:ific quantitative methods
present important traffic
uded.
nay not be completeness or
zing Board's perception of
es have been presented now
st "on the table" for the
)exception is it may not be
ject on these issues, that
consideration during the
technical issue. It was
:h Travers and the Planning
a concern regarding the
:ation Demand Management
ultimate trip generation
ing the use of rates from
t be more successful in
1e than could be .achieved
end these assumptions, and
ie to me.
i
• Paragraph 7 - Potential impacts associated with future Right -of-
Way needs is regarded by Travers as too technical to be properly
identified as part of the DGEIS. Larsen brought up the issue
merely as a common consideration of whether proposed mitigation
that include widening can be judged adequate in a general way, and
whether alternatives can be identified with potential future ROW
needs as part of ,the consideration. Travers indicates the
mitigation alternatives were examined in a general way as part of
their analysis, and that all proposed widening is considered
achievable based on potential ROW ��needs. They view any
identification of needed ROW as potentially controversial, and too
undeterminate at this time, to add enough to the analysis to be
worthwhile.
It was agreed that i1the traffic impact
information for a reviewer to decide wh
any area, and therefore need not be
issue.
r�
U
Paragraph 8 - The study area has been
relates to the original project scop
request that the intersection of Route
added to the analysis, could be reserve
This issue has been placed on t
consideration, and therefore making it
not necessarily be productive. It is
that any significant traffic impacts _neE
initially perceived as part of the pro
expressed our opinion as a hopefully h
stages of the reviewj, we agree to let t
Paragraph 9 - This regional plannini
before, and was not considered necessz
Travers views such ,discussions as uni
scope of the study, but Larsen views thi
as simply a usual part of the des
transportation system.
analysis provides enough
ether this is important in
considered a completeness
adequately discussed as it
and it seems that our
79 with Pine Tree Road be
I for the technical review.
.e table for everyone's
a completeness issue would
nerely Larsen's contention
I to be identified, whether
ect scope or not. Having
�lpful preparation for all
fte community decide.
issue has been discussed
ry to go into depth here.
ecessarily increasing the
regional planning context
:ription of the existing
"Review for Completeness" Transportation Impact Report Section
Background Traffic Growth: Larsen's
related to the need for additional tra]
ADT on study area roadways, and any othi
traffic increase trends in the stud
information in any traffic impact repot
indicate that the background traffic
incorrect, or needed to be changed, bi
traffic information that is often hel
available in the draft traffic impact a
hour ADT informationlon study area road
5X7' C;?�
comments here were merely
�fic information related to
I available information on
Y area. This is common
't. It was not intended to
growth rate chosen was
t only that commonly used
)ful to reviewers was not
aalysis report, such as 24
ways.
•
•
LdA
Everything Travers has indicated verball!'y in response to this issue
seems reasonable. We merely note that such additional information
on how the background traffic growth factor was arrived at would be
helpful in the traffic impact analysis report. And ADT information
is often a helpful addition to the peak hour traffic counts. I
don't see this as an issue that necessarily has to be resolved at
the completeness stage, but one that jJis offered for everyone's
information based on our belief it will be an issue with those
agencies and individuals who review thel� document.
Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment - It was agreed that the
requested additional information regarding the inputs used to
arrive at the generated traffic assumptlions could be added to the
technical appendix.
Traffic Counts: It was agreed this is aitechnical issue. Larsen's
comments are offered merely for everyone) s information regarding an
area of important data collection that could be questioned in the
future. Travers' response that the University was in regular
session during the November traffic counts seems satisfactory.
Level of Service /Mitigation Threshold: Travers feels that all
apYropriate and practical mitigation measures have been included.
L.. %sen notes that the results presented for future full development
Judd Falls & Route' 366, and Caldwell Road with Route 366 are not
.satisfactory. It is agreed, however,) that this need not be a
completeness issue, depending on the needs of the Town Planning
�< N Ord, and that effects of developmental are at least identified.
IL
T._: -avers does not agree with Larsen's suggestion that a relocated 4-
wa• intersection alternative for Judd Falls & Route 366 should be
a part of this study. They suggest that potential future
improvements at this intersection mayJ�be more appropriate at a
point in time when increasing traffic is more evident, and
therefore NYSDOT will be more easily convinced to enter into the
analysis of mitigation measures. And they note that since widening
of Route 366 may mean a wider bridge over the Creek is needed in
the future anyway, another bridge crossing of the creek may be
impractical. Larsen maintains that it will become evident during
the technical review'stage that either such an alternative at the
Route 366 & Judd Falls intersection needs to be explored, or that
the project at full buildout will cause,ll undue traffic congestion.
Existing Deficiencies: Technical question for discussion only,
Travers answers satisfactory.
Pedestrians
answered by
& Bicycles:
Travers.
Public Transit -
Travers response
"Special Land Use
discussion
District is
Technical question for information only,
It was agreed that the ',additional information per
would be helpful and can be added to the rPnnrt_
District" (SLUD) -
only, it was
one mechanism
agreed that
for sharing
Teclhnical comment
a Transportation
costs that may be
zz
offered for
Development
helpful to
V
iexplore.
Fire Dept. - It was :agreed this is a technical, not a completeness
issue.
Utilities - Agreed, technical, not colmp1eteness. Probably any
utilities extension' would be underground, but not necessary to
attempt any final determination now.
Parking: It was agreed that the additional detail on parking
demand can be provided in the Technical Supplement. Since
everything discussed by Travers seems to indicate this process was
properly conducted, it need not be considered a completeness issue,
but one that is suggested to help reviewers during the technical
review stage.
Traffic Signals: It was agreed this is a technical comment. We're
in agreement on this Tissue per Travers r1eferenced written response.
Technical Capacity Analysis Procedures': It was agreed this is a
technical comment, and Travers' answers per the written response,
are satisfactory. li
i
Page by Page Comments
i
I
p. 2 - study area comment addressed previously.
p. 7 - simple question, answered, 4K !f
Figures 5a, 5b, 6a,1,6b - The imbalanc
intersection of Judd Falls and Forest
adjacent intersections of Pleasant Grove
corrected. This does not necessarily
needed, simply that the traffic at
adjusted, based on!, the consistent ri
Travers defends thedata collection in
should be consideredla technical comment
important completeness issue, since t
traffic volumes are identified hex
intersection of Judd Falls and Forest
totally accurate.
p. 9 - It was agreed this is a technic
and addressed earlier. While not necesi
completeness, we suggest that merely red
is available in the Ithaca Comprehensive
should be provided as part of the traff,
p. 11 - The differences in Level of S,
1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the n�j
Travers used to obtain delay estimat
intersections were discussed. The newE
i �1
e in traffic volume at the
:come, as compared with the
and Warren Road, should be
mean that new counts are
the one intersection be
!sults at the other two.
this area, and believes it
While not necessarily an
Ze: existing and projected
e, the results at the
come can not be considered
al comment, regarding ADT,
sarily crucial in terms of
'erencing the fact that ADT
Plan is not enough, and it
is impact study.
ervice results between the
awer 1991 computer program
:es at estop sign control
:r program may be a better
(W
)o4Z02
6
r
•
I
way to evaluate stop sign controlled it
noted that the areasilwhere Level of Se
under the 1985 HCM method, and acceptab
method, will probably be questioned dur.
Travers is confident they can def
intersections noted "in Table 4 are not
they are slated for signal improvements
at the Game Farm Rd.�intersection with
questioned.
it
p. 12 - It was agreed that discussion of the capacity analysis
results can be considered a technical issue. Travers considers the
full development results at the intersection of Route 366 and Judd
Falls Road to be workable with their proposed mitigation. Larsen
is skeptical of the results, based on the noted comments. It was
agreed everything is there for interested agencies and individuals
to review, and therefore properly a part of the technical review
stage.
11
p. 19 - Agreed this'lis a technical comment.
".ersections. It should be
•vice is identified as "F"
e "B" or "C" under the new
ng the DGEIS review stage.
nd the analysis. The
a problem, anyway, since
but the future conditions
Ellis Hollow Rd. could be
Tables S1, S2, S3 -;I Agreed this is a t
refers to a controversial 1981 study tha
realignment of Judd ''Falls & Route 36
bringing up again, since they don't
practical.
:chnical comment. Travers
attempted to advocate the
they are uncomfortable
see the alternative as
I
p. 32 - Agreed this P is a technical comment, answers provided
Travers are satisfactory.
p. 34 - Agreed this is a technical comment. The two million
reference was meant as an example for discussion and
necessarily a proposed new threshold. We're in agreement this
a traffic sensitive, area that would warrant monitoring as
project progresses.
by
GSF
not
is
the
Page by page comments - Main body of DGEIS
that relate to transportation impacts
Section I. - B. PuL pose, Need, Benefits
Agreed this is a technical comment. Athletic Dept. has
indicated activities can be scheduied to avoid conflicts.
C. Location
2. Access - sight distance
are no readily apparent
proposed access'llocations
D.' Development Program -
points onto Route 366 is
issue previously addressed. There
sight distance problems at the
that have been identified.
Limitation ofultimate number of access
agreed to as a';goal.
i q
o
d
!II 1
The final five paragraphs, including references to p. 35, p . 44-451
p.85 and p.203 were previously discussed with satisfactory answers.
The truck percentages assumed 20 sincellduring data collection of
peak hour traffic counts, no unusual numbers of heavy vehicles were
observed.
a
I
•
ICI
�!I
•
TO
BY
SUBJECT I .I
I�
MEMORANDUM OF RECnan
if
Cornell University
Lewis S. Roscoe {
The Lb Group
Stuart xesinger
Travers usociait
David A. Stroud
RBSPORSB TO LAR6
RECYIVRD 7/21
GEIS Public Ravi
Ithaca, Now York
Project 392 -107-
DATE: July 28, 1992
Content
The traffic study for Draft Genex
Stateawent,,l(DGRIS) is currently be
news. We' have reviewed the corms
relating to completeness of the d
will be address in more detail at
the review process.
Genera
Cczmantx
The DGEISIevalnates existing condl
svaluates future conditions with s
it
e, Inc.
1
Znvirommental
reviewed for ., ..
and .. eased questions
appropriate -7nnt. Technical issue
- ... . .. _ . . .
• i
• - it
r� III
Precinct 7 I Tho traffic stns► is a 'planning tool to
identify potential iapacts and rvaluate possible
N11 : JA as, , NMI - - 0 .
i
local or site
S site specific
Completeness Issue:
agreed connector road is outside the RcI Of the DGZ1So Rowever,,
as _ .. a. general discussion
Of the concept of the new connector iroad will be provided.
Paragraph a _ Completeness Issue: The octopnB is outside
the study area but a general description of the proposed
• MDM plans coald be included.
I
Paragraph 31 — Technical Issue: The f TTansportation Worksbop
addreased regional planning issues. The intent of a DGiIS
is to be site specific. The policiejf /regulation issues
described in the worknhap summary are appropriate for the
if
Tcvns Comprtehensive Plan not the i n.
Paragraghs 4 5 TeCA&ical I aueo The DGRIS is not
appropriate document to recoI horizontal and vertical
&Lic;=Qnt changes or solution to system vide to Transportame
tion Problem'i. The Town's Comprehensive
than problem identification. Solutions
for ixVIONCUtation should be part of any comprehan ive plan,
I
•
I
I
�� II
Paragraph 6 — rachnical Issue: The 'success of transporta-
tion control measures are well documented and can be
'discussed and defended if questiona''larise.
..i. :.
of �Way • acquisition
twenty that may be need in
and will not
Paragraph 8 Completeness
scope tions are not in the
Town and Coxnelld
Issue: The identification Right-
wded to �lanent improvements I['
Years is beyond the D(EIS steps
as part a'f the W1IS.
Issue: The rete Mated iatersec-
of the study established by the
I
Czmpletanaea
.. pla= .. not exist. The D.
The DORIS is not the pruper place toll address reclional
Backgronnd(lTraffic growth - Completeness Ieane: Since no
ccmprQhensive regional transportation plan was evailable at
either thanatat.e or local laval, the!igrowth rata factor
method was lused to predict future traffic. This method uses
histoltraffic count data to establish the growth rate
within the a
jstudy area and is adequate for the DGEIS.
Reporting traffic trends -outside•thelletudy area has no
bearing or relevance to the Dcmis.
10 9
•
U
-4-
Trip Distribution and Traffic Ass'ignnent - Completeness
Issue: The technical appendix will be amended to include
the Cornell employee population distribution data.
Traffic counts 'i- Technical Issue:ll' The Qniversity was in
regular session during the Novenber, 1990 traffic counts,
therefore the counts are representative samples.
season
1 !actors are not available from either the State nor
11 11
County.
Level of Serviae/Mitigation
I
As agreed at our aeeting, a
- Completeness issue;
iscussion of the
concept of the!'new connector roadijwill be provided. The
benefit of such a facility is at best speculation.
Existing Deficiencies - Technical'i Issue : The existing
deficiencies should be implemented when ever the Town /State
desires to improve existing operations.
Pedestrians and Bicycles - Completeness Issue: A map Was
provided on page 130 of the DGEISJ
Public Transit - Completeness Issue: The test will be
modified to explain the extensive jicoordination that exists
• • • the trnnmit operators a• • that expanded
4
}6
Slud - Technical Issues g TDD is one mechanism for sharing
• costs that the Town and Cornell will need to evaluate.
Fire Department;, - Technical Comment: This comment is
technical not completeness and can'' be addressed at another
time.
��
•
•
•
-5-
Utilities - Technical Comment:
I�
eoapleteaess.
1
Parsing — Technical Ccmeut; The additional detail on
Darling d ®and can be provided in ibe Technical SupQleswnt.
This information is not needed for Lithe doeuxent to be
cw�lsted.
I�
can be revised to mention .hat
varrants.jl
Tacbmical Carmwity
The Dots Omodified by Travers
in the print�out format to &r,
and Mme .. analyzed.
utilize travel time delay in addit:
intersection capacity. Because la;
delay.
The New York State
tigation descriptions
are not clearly
could relate to
The intern four -gay stop procedurel(JUlyr 1991) is the
latest and only procedure avai.lablej� for this type of
intersection and is to be used as a guideline. Hcx
unsignaliaed reports only reserve capacity not v /c.
• Figures 5a, 5b, 6a, fib - Technical Convent;
�I
balance, 9B sons imbalance. obtained three,
d
count eanples per boar.
i
Page 9 - Technical Comment; so
pmj@ la - Technical Comments Ca
internal clearance. Overlapping
Tables 81, '1S2,
93 - Technical
....
five~mi_aute
8o delay studies
� _•. .
is iaaltsded.
11 1
Page 32 - Techaical comet; Described in Introduction to
traffic study Technical Supplements i.s. Volans 1 of 3.
Used multi =leq procedure
by seal A. Deno, Transportation
Planing consultant. Procedure provides average vehicle
delay at signalized intersections with five to eight legs.
ECS software is used to evaluate all intersection approaches
as if they were two separate intersections. All movements
fl occurring in iome phase arc in seas analysis and full cycle
length is nssd in each analysis.
DGRIH traffic Study in a
the _ __ shculd he .•r_. ._ to determine . .. needed.
Page 35 Public Transportation - Completeness Issues
Preyioucly addressed.
r4 !(—a
•
Page 35 Parking - Technical Comeatir Previously addressed,
Page 85,yitigation Keasures - Techn'acal Co>sent: Previously
di9cusaed
d I
Page 203 poise }titigatioa - Tatham Coslftatr Based on tvo
pe: cut .
ill
ii