Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-02-01TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 1, 1994 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Cler - The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 1, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Eva Hoffmann, Candace Cornell, Stephen Smith, George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), Louise Raimondo (Planner I), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Susan D. McGreivy, Ray Domell, Cisela Wildes, Nancy Gabriel, Greg Thomas, Liz Walker, Jennifer Bokaer - Smith, Jerry & Claudia Weisburd, Steven Gourder, Susan Bissell, Ed Finegan, Doug Brown, Deena Burke, Kate Benjamin, John Bokaer- Smith, Lew Roscoe, Ellen Harrison, Karen Knudson, Jay Jacobson, Thomas H. Johnson. Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Kenerson 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: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons i Kenerson closed TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 1, 1994 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Cler - The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 1, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Eva Hoffmann, Candace Cornell, Stephen Smith, George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), Louise Raimondo (Planner I), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Susan D. McGreivy, Ray Domell, Cisela Wildes, Nancy Gabriel, Greg Thomas, Liz Walker, Jennifer Bokaer - Smith, Jerry & Claudia Weisburd, Steven Gourder, Susan Bissell, Ed Finegan, Doug Brown, Deena Burke, Kate Benjamin, John Bokaer- Smith, Lew Roscoe, Ellen Harrison, Karen Knudson, Jay Jacobson, Thomas H. Johnson. Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Kenerson 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: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Kenerson closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: PROPOSED " ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA CO- HOUSING PROJECT, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF UP TO 180 DWELLINGS; EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND VISITORS' FACILITIES; AND APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE TO BE MAINTAINED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MECKLENBERG ROAD (NYS RTE. 79) JUST WEST OF WEST HAVEN ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 28 -1 -26.2 AND 28 -1 -26.81 176 + /- ACRES TOTAL, RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R -15 AND R -30. ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA, OWNER; FIRST RESIDENCE GROUP, APPLICANT. Chairperson Kenerson declared the Sketch Plan Review of the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:35 p.m. Nancy Gabriel of 71 Lois Lane, addressed the Board and stated that she was a member of EcoVillage at Ithaca, Inc. and a landowner that supports the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gabriel stated that she would give an overview of the EcoVillage project. Ms. Gabriel stated that Jennifer Bokaer -Smith would speak of the activities proposed for the EcoVillage land on West Hill, Jay Planning Board 2 February 1, 1994 Jacobson would speak as a representative of the First Residents Group, and Jerry and Claudia Weisburd were attending the meeting as consultants to the pioneer project. Ms. Gabriel stated that her role was to clarify the identity of various entities that answer to the name of EcoVillage. Ms. Gabriel stated that since June 1992 EcoVillage at Ithaca has held title to 176 acres of land within the Town of Ithaca, and that the Board of Directors of EcoVillage, Inc. is legally and financially responsible for that 176 acres of land and for the oversite of the educational project which is planned. Ms. Gabriel stated that the First Residents Group (FROG) plans to buy a parcel from EcoVillage at Ithaca on which to build the pioneer project, which would be presented to the Board in the near future. Ms. Gabriel stated that the FROG wanted to build their homes and live their lives in accordance with the EcoVillage vision. Ms. Gabriel stated that it was anticipated that five or six such groups would build neighborhoods over the next several years at this site. Ms. Gabriel referred to the handout entitled, "EcoVillage at Ithaca and the Pioneer Project ", and dated December 15, 1993, by reading a statement of purpose located within said handout. (Handout attached hereto as Exhibit #1) Ms. Gabriel also referred to the plan entitled, " EvoVillage at Ithaca, An Envisioning Plan ". (which is located on the last page of Exhibit #1) Ms. Gabriel stated that less than 10% of the land would be used for housing with the neighborhoods clustered together. Ms. Gabriel stated that water and open space plans would included wooded and open habitat near Coy Glen to grow food, orchards, flowers, gardens and provide space for environmental education. Ms. Gabriel stated that over all, EcoVillage would create a sustainable and replicable model of human being living harmoniously with their surroundings. Jennifer Bokaer -Smith of 120 East York Street, addressed the Board and stated that the use of the land and the activities to take place on the land are proposed to be approximately 20 acres for housing and educational facilities, 20 acres of woods, 130 acres of agricultural land. Ms. Bokaer -Smith stated that there was a small pond located on the land. Ms. Bokaer -Smith stated that there was a one acre garden that consists of three different projects, 1) A community garden, 2)GIAC summer camp program for the children, and 3) Community supported market garden, which feeds about 50 people during the summer months. Ms. Bokaer -Smith stated that approximately 90% of the parcel is anticipated to remain in agricultural and other natural open space. Jay Jacobson of Slaterville Road, addressed the Board and gave a brief description of co- housing communities, what they are and how they work as a community. Mr. Jacobson then gave a slide presentation, which showed two already existing co- housing Planning Board 3 February 1, 1994 neighborhoods in Washington state and Colorado, the back yards, the street systems within the communities, and the interior of a central dining area, which is available to all residents and visitors. Mr. Jacobson stated on a personal note that a neighborhood community such as the proposed EcoVillage, has an added safety factor for the protection of the children. Mr. Jacobson stated that the intention of the FROG of EcoVillage would be to build the community for themselves and for future generations. Jerry Weisburd of House Craft Builders, addressed the Board and stated that he was acting as a consultant for EcoVillage. Mr. Weisburd stated that to him the most significant and contentious issue in the Comprehensive Plan would be how to balance environmental goals with housing and economic goals. Mr. Weisburd stated that EcoVillage shows a way of achieving the Comprehensive Plans often conflicting goals. Mr. Weisburd stated. that the Pioneer Project would appear before the Planning Board as a Subdivision of 40 to 50 acres. Mr. Weisburd stated that after Subdivision, EcoVillage would be seeking Site Plan Approval to build approximately 30 units plus a common house. Mr. Weisburd stated that there would be conflicts that would need to be resolved. Some of the conflicts Mr. Weisburd mentioned were. height requirement of no more than 30 feet, no more than six units in a building are not currently allowed, and more would be needed, and the 30 feet requirement between houses. Mr. Weisburd stated that the common house was not listed as a use in the current zoning ordinances for the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Weisburd stated that in order to address each of the conflicts, EcoVillage would like to create a Special Land Use District (SLUD) . Mr. Weisburd addressed the issue of municipal services infrastructure. There was an additional hand out for the proposed EcoVillage project entitled "EcoVillage at Ithaca, Mission Statement and Planning Phase Organizational Structure ", which is dated February 28, 1993. (Handout is attached hereto as Exhibit #2) Chairperson Kenerson thanked the representatives of EcoVillage for their presentations and asked what the time -line for the project would be. Mr. Weisburd stated that EcoVillage would like to come before the Board for Subdivision and Site Plan review in Spring of 1994, and if the project is approved at that time, EcoVillage would like to start work in the Fall of 1994 or the Spring of 1995 at the latest. Planning Board 4 February 1, 1994 The Board discussed the water, and sewer situation in the area of the proposed site. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that technically there should be no problems with water or sewer in that area. Board Member James Ainslie asked if there would be enough room for emergency vehicles to get into and out of the roads within the community. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that making enough room for an emergency vehicle was a design detail and that space could be provided for that purpose. Mr. Frantz stated that a turnaround space for emergency vehicles is not required to be paved. There being no further discussion, Chairperson. Kenerson declared the discussion of the proposed EcoVillage Pioneer Project duly closed at 8:38 p.m. AGENDA ITEM. CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY DGEIS COMMENTS. REVIEW OF DRAFT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, THE TOMPKINS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COUNCIL, AND THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion of the Cornell University DGEIS comments duly opened at 8:44 p.m. Planner I, Louise Raimondo stated that Town staff had prepared draft responses to the comments received from Tompkins County Department of Planning, the Tompkins County Environmental Review Council, and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee. Ms. Raimondo stated that the responses were grouped into thirds; the first one -third was given to the Board (Attached hereto as Exhibit #3), the second one -third would address traffic issues raised, and the third one -third would address the concerns submitted by Ellen Harrison and the remainder of public comments. Town Attorney John Barney and Planner I. Louise Raimondo discussed whether the Planning Board would be approving the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) and how this related to the approval of the Special Land Use District (SLUD). Lewis Roscoe addressed the Board and stated that the SLUD is a vehicle that will allow Cornell University to move into the development stage when that time comes. Mr. Roscoe stated that both the SLUD and the text of the GEIS had to be considered by the Planning Board. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members and members of the Town staff discussed the drafted responses to the publics concerns, Planning Board 5 February 1, 1994 the possible need for changes to the SLUD and the GEIS. The Board was reminded that any individual project that Cornell University proposed would have to come before the Planning Board for review and approval even after the adoption of the GEIS. The Board discussed setback requirements, and gross square footage of buildings, no -build zones, buffer zones, and total ground coverage allowances, and the proposed SLUD performance standards. The Board discussed an appropriate setback /buffer zone from the Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods Natural Areas. The Board stated their preferences on the size of a buffer zone between the natural areas and buildable areas as follows: Robert Kenerson - buffer not necessary if special permit required Candace Cornell - 100 -foot buffer Stephen Smith - 100 -foot buffer Eva Hoffmann - 100 -foot buffer Virginia Langhans - 75 -foot buffer Herbert Finch - 50 to 75 -foot buffer James Ainslie - 50 to 75 -foot buffer Lewis Roscoe stated that Cornell University would be more amiable to a no -build setback of closer to 60 feet than 100 feet. The Board discussed the range of possible uses which could be permitted within this "no- build" buffer zone. Ellen Harrison of the Town of Ithaca Town Board, addressed the Planning Board and suggested that only uses which enhance the natural areas such as gazebos, paths, etc. be permitted. Candace Cornell agreed, adding that uses compatible with passive recreation and visual appreciation of natural areas should be allowed. The Board decided that these types of uses should be permitted, but that roads, buildings, and facilities not compatible with natural areas should not be permitted within this buffer zone. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion of the Cornell University DGEIS and SLUD duly closed at 10 :48 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Kenerson asked if there was any other business to come before the Board for discussion. Town Engineer Daniel Walker, referring to Hospicare Subdivision, stated that there were two phases involved in the approval of that project, and a condition of Subdivision Approval was that no building permits would be issued for either Parcel A or Parcel B until Saunders Road was completed and accepted. Mr. Planning Board 6 February 1, 1994 Walker stated that he did not feel that the condition was intended to prevent building on Parcel A. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Virginia Langhans: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby modifies the condition 3f of its resolution of November 17, 1992 granting full subdivision approval for the proposed Chase Pond /Hospicare Subdivision to exclude Parcel A from the requirement of the proposed road and other public improvements be complete prior to the issuance of any building permits provided however that all other provisions of conditions be met. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Hoffmann, Finch, Smith, Ainslie, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the February 1, 1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, StarrRae ays, Reco Ing Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board Drafted 4/13/94 171 ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA AND THE PIONEER PROJECT SUSTAINABLE HOUSING WITHIN A LONG TERM VISION ,. Submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board by The First Residents' Group Joan Bokaer and Liz Walker (contact persons) 255 -8276 December 15, 1993 is Exhibit #1 2/1/94 Minutes EFFORTS TO CURB CATASTROPHIC ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE WAY THE WORLD HAS DEVELOPED SINCE THE DAWN OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION The Smithsonian Conference, l;all, 1989 • • n �1 U ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA AND THE PIONEER PROJECT Sustainable Housing within a Long Term Vision Introduction',,.,,., .... ...... 1101,1160 ........ III .... ........ 0 ......... 2 Part 1: EcoVillage at Ithaca,. I I Ile 60006000 Ile 103 Introduction: Goals, Site, Organization ............... ..............................3 A Long Term Vision of Sustainable Development ............................4 Water and Waste -water ............................ ..............................5 Agriculture and Woodland ................ Low Impact, Neighborhood Housing ........ ..............................6 Transportation.",*,,, 04110 &,a 116 Educational, Research and other Development .......................6 Part 2: Sustainable Housing Development: The FROG Pioneer Project ............................ ..............................7 Overview of the FRoG Organization .................. ..............................7 Sustainable Housing Development: The Pioneer Project ...................7 The Pioneer Project and the Comprehensive Plan ...................7 The Pioneer Project and Municipal Services ...........................9 �J ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA AND THE PIONEER PROJECT SUSTAINABLE HOUSING WITHIN A LONG TERM VISION INTRODUCTION EcoVillage is a far - reaching response to present - and future - ecological issues. Over the course of the next 20 years, EcoVillage aims to create a model, viable, sust�oiinable community on West Hill that integrates environmentally sensitive planning on local and regional levels, with highly energy - efficient housing, and with comprehensive energy, agricultural, and land use activities. The vision is bold, ambitious and complex, as it must be in order to effectively address the multiple, interrelated dimensions of truly sustainable development. The project has, of necessity, been divided into parts to be realized over 15 to 20 years, as feasible. The part under immediate consideration of the Planning Board is the Pioneer Project, an independent, residential cohousing project. Itself a model of sustainable housing development, thi;)l housing component will be able to exist regardless of the speed of the development of the; wider Eco- Village project. To implement the cohousing component, a First Resident Group (known as the FRoG'), made up of people of all ages and diverse interests and occupations, formed as an autonomous entity to develop the housing plan within the EcoVillage context. While the larger EcoVillage context is central to the goals, planning, and design of the housing', the FROG is a separate entity from EcoVillage, and not dependent upon any development of the wider project. Thus, the FRoG (and not EcoVillage)is the developer of the independent, cohousing project which will be coming before the Planning Board for approvals. The following pages describe the overall goals and visions of the wider EcoVillage project. A collection ofEVI newsletters, relevant newspaper articles, and other documents which further illustrate both EVI and the FRoG is available (cross - referenced in this document with notes of Item 1, 2, etc.) In Part 1, the EcoVillage concept of sustainable development is presented in greater detail. Part 2 describes the FRoG and its housing endeavor, the Pioneer Project. ' For many FRoG members, their acronym is very significant as amphibians are one of the most rapidly disappearing phylum on the face of the planet. ` The FRoG Mission Statement is Item 1. 0 N PART I • ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA Introduction: Goals, Site, Organization In June, 1991, under the Religion Ethics. and Social Policy common a concern for environmei change the predominant form development. They decided: auspices of EcoVillage \CRESP (a project of the Center for at Cornell University).a diverse group of people who had in ital issues, met for a week. The group sought specific ways to of land- and resource - consumptive, automobile- dependent "...to create a model community that would showcase systems and methods that were sustainable, practical and replicable; thereby demonstrating the feasibility of using an integrated design to meet basic human needs (shelter, food production, energy, social interaction, etc.) while preserving natural ecosystems." (Proposed EVI Mission Statement) In order to create such a model, they formed a New York 501(c)(3) corporation called EcoVillage at Ithaca (EVI). The overall task that EVI set was: "to establish and promote for the general public: the preservation and conservation of open space; the development of scientific methods to implement ecologically and socially sustainable high density community living; the teaching of successful methods to the broader community." (Statement of Purpose EVI Articles of Incorporation) In June of 1992, EVI purchased +/- 176 acres at the junction of West Haven and Mecklenburg Rd., in the Town of Ithaca. The site, 1.6 miles from downtown Ithaca and 3.6 miles from Cornell University was chosen to facilitate integration of EcoVillage with the greater Ithaca community, and to most easily enable long -term utilization of the significant technical and human resources of Cornell University and Ithaca College. The site is zoned R15 along West Haven, with the balance zoned R30. Approximately 150 acres are currently in hay (the site was formerly farmed by the Eddy family), approximately 18 acres are woodland, and there is one small pond; there are no houses or other significant structures on the property. A portion of the western boundary is shared with the Coy Glen natural area. (See Item 2, vicinity map, and Item 3, aerial photo.) As EcoVillage proceeded with its project, the organization developed with three distinct legal entities. Item 4 shows a diagram of the organizational structure . 1. EcoVillage \CRESP: EV\CRESP is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University. It has a full time staff devoted to developing the processes and technologies necessary for the formation of socially and technologically sustainable communities. At present it is assisting EcoVillage projects in Ithaca, New York and Yoff, Senegal, West Africa. 3 2. EcoVillage at Ithaca: EVI is the entity which purchased the parcel of land in the Town of Ithaca upon which EcoVillage at Ithaca is to be built. It has the responsibility for creating the processes, technologies and methodologies necessary to the creation of EVI. • It has been assisted in these efforts by the staff of EV\CRESP.' 3. The First Resident Group of EcoVillage at Ithaca: The FRoG consists of approximately twenty -six households who want to be residents of the first EVI cohousing neighborhood. The FRoG has contracted with EV\CRESP for assistance in. developing the processes, systems and technologies necessary to the formation of a socially and technologically sustainable neighborhood. EVI is, in many ways, chartering new ground. While the technology to build an EcoVillage has existed for some time, very few entities which can be called EcoVillages have been constructed or are under construction in the United States. EVI will be researching, drawing together, integrating, and adapting technologies and approaches to sustainable development over the short and long term. A Long Term Vision of Sustainable Development During the nine months following the land purchase, EVI, under the guidance of EV\CRESP, held four Land Use Planning Forums in which (future residents, architects, landscape architects, students, professors, planners, ecologists, organic farmers, and energy experts met in task groups to develop the long term goals and approaches, or "vision." Using the EVI land as their foundation, the task groups generated basic guidelines for the development of EcoVillage, all of which require conformance with the Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. (See Item 7, the Guidelines for Development, adopted in October, 199.) Planning began with an inventory of the available natural resources: topography, water resources, solar and wind energy, soil types, woods, vegetation and a catalog ng of species.' As areas of the land best suited for developing water resources, agriculture, forestry, wild life were identified, that land was reserved for those purposes. Human habitat was then relegated to the land least suited to other environmentally important functions. EcoVillage: at Ithaca plans to ensure these land uses through a series of conservation easements. The Guidelines, along with other information gathered during; the planning process, were transformed into a conceptual "Envisioning Plan" by local architect: Pamela Williams, working with Philip Snyder, Director of the Finger Lakes Land Trust. (The Plan is shown as Item 8, s For further information on the numerous activities of both EVI and EV\CRESP, see the joint EVI and EVI\CRESP's First and Second Annual Reports, Items 5 and. 6. ° The study of the available resources is ongoing. For example, EVI will erect a 70' wind tower - pole to measure the available wind resources (for which it recently recieved a variance from the BZA). 0 2 0 "EcoVillage at Ithaca:An Envisioning Plan. ") Thus, the environment itself was the central organizing element for planning the development of the site. Major elements of the Envisioning Plan include: Water and Waste -water Since water is vital to sustaining life, available water resources were given priority in the Envisioning Plan. The three intermittent streams known to exist on the land are planned as cleansing marshes and a series of ponds. The intent is to slow down the flow of the water to allow biological processes to cleanse it and then to use the water for aquaculture, irrigation and recreation. The series of marshes are also expected to attract wildlife to the area. While conventional sewage treatment is planned for all housing at this time, EVI hopes that at some future date some waste water will be recycled through a demonstration biological waste treatment system. Agriculture and Woodland Agriculture The Envisioning Plan seeks to actively integrate agriculture and neighborhood housing. The plan envisions a variety of agricultural activities including market, community and children's gardens, agro- forestry, aquaculture, orchards, vineyards, field crops and a limited amount of intensive live -stock grazing. EVI plans to encourage and research organic methods. Concepts of permaculture (permanent agriculture) will be applied as they are understood. EVI's first agricultural project, the West Haven Community Gardens, was established under the auspices of the EVI Agricultural Committee in May, 1993. Projects of the Gardens have included a program with internships to assist children from the GIAC summer camp to plant, maintain and harvest their own food. The first agricultural enterprise is the West Haven Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). A CSA is a form of agricultural business which supports the concept of locally grown organic produce. In a CSA the farmers sell shares to members of the public at the beginning of each growing season. For their investment, a shareholder is entitled to a voice in the types of crops grown and a proportional share of the produce; but s/he also shares the farmers' risk. In its first season, the West Haven CSA fed fifty people from only a third of an acre. Many of the members of the FRoG are already members of the CSA. Woodland EVI is well aware of the significance of the Coy Glen Natural Area, and of the importance of protecting woodland within the Town. To offer additional buffer between the EcoVillage site and Coy Glen, the EVI plan calls for extending a forested corridor on the field that abuts the Coy Glen area. In addition, EVI will offer to make these woods a part of the Greenways trail project. 5 Low Impact, Neighborhood Housing Under the EVI vision, approximately 150 acres of the 176 acre site will be set aside for agriculture, water systems, and recreational uses, with a ;maximum. of 21 acres allocated to housing. To implement the guidelines for sustainable development, and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the housing will be carefully designed to minimize hand use, drastically minimize vehicular circulation, and maximize community life and security. Ultimately, up to six clustered, pedestrian- oriented neighborhoods of approximately 30 household each are planned, following the cohousing model used in Scandinavian countries over the last twenty years. The cohousing concept is not new. It was pioneered in Denmark, and by 1989, more than 120 communities had been built in Denmark, Sweden, and Holland. More than one - hundred co- housing projects are in some phase of planning or construction across the Uruted States, and six are completed and lived in. Cohousing clusters self - contained housing units within and around pedestrian space. To minimize land use and resource consumption, houses are smaller and more efficiently designed than typical American housing, and common facilities are shared within a large "Common House ". Facilities in the Common House vary among different cohousing projects, but usually include kitchens capable of handling preparation of optional shared meals, spaces for child care and young- people's activities, laundry facilities, workshops, storage and guest rooms. Thus, the Common House allows the privacy and autonomy of individual houses to be balanced with the energy and resource efficiency of shared facilities, and further, it serves to significantly enhance community life, flexibility for working parents, and community security. For pictures and more information about cohousing, see the book Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves (McCamant and Durrett), and photo at Item 9. Transportation EVI neighborhoods are to be designed for pedestrian and bicycle use. Cohousing neighborhoods, as a rule, are designed around pedestrian space, while allowing for emergency vehicle access, with parking located on the periphery of j the neighborhoods. Minimization of automobile use is a strongly felt goal of EVI and the FRoG.! As the Comprehensive Plan calls for "[n]eighborhoods that are quiet, clean, and safe and that have low traffic, low vehicle speeds" (p.HI - 2), so the FRoG wants neighborhoods without the fumes, noise, danger, and resource consumption of cars. Educational, Research and other Development Under the Envisioning Plan, other limited activities within the EVI community are imagined. Applications and approvals for these components of the EVI plan will occur as the overall plan develops. Because EcoVillage is intended as a model, the Plan ultimately aims to have an educational, research, and visitors' facility to demonstrate EVI systems and technology. To promote the goal of minimized vehicular use both within the community as well as in the broader Ithaca area, efforts will be made to develop on -site home offices or cottage industries. is C PART 2 SUSTAINABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: THE FROG PIONEER PROJECT Overview of the FRoG Organization In May„ 1992, a group of EVI friends and neighbors interested in living in the first EVI cohousing neighborhood met and formed the First Residents' Group. The FRoG is a membership organization bound together by a Charter and other legal instruments. There are three membership levels: a person can join the waiting list, become a FRoG member, or sign the joint venture. Signing the joint venture commits that household to purchasing a home in conjunction with other joint venture members. To foster a well - functioning community, the FROG conducts its business using the consensus process. In consensus, a proposal is made, and is then followed with questions and concerns; all members are encouraged to speak in the ensuing discussion. When it seems appropriate, a request is made to test for consensus. If a member objects, discussion can continue, the member can block consensus, or 'stand aside' and allow consensus to be reached 'without' him or her. Should consensus fail to be reached, a proposal may be adopted if it is supported by 80% of the membership. The twenty -six households presently holding various levels of membership in the FRoG meet twice a month. Agendas are prepared by a steering m ng comittee which is charged with continuing the forward direction of the group. Numbers of committees and individuals also undertake various responsibilities for the project. Among them are the finance, process and other ad hoc committees. The FRoG is now in the process of seeking and selecting a team to design the Pioneer Project, the first, independent cohousing neighborhood at EcoVillage. The goal of the FRoG is to complete selection of the design team by the end of February, and to have the team actively engaged in design by mid-March. Unlike most conventional housing developments which come before the Board, the Pioneer Project is being undertaken by the future residents themselves, acting as their own developer, people who will actively work with the design team to produce a project that realizes their goals and ideals for sustainable housing development. Sustainable Housing Development: The Pioneer Project The Pioneer Project and the Comprehensive Plan The Pioneer Project is a cohousing community of thirty clustered households, to be built on a 40 -60 acre parcel of land subdivided off from the EVI parcel of 176 acres. The smaller parcel will be owned outright by the FRoG for the purpose of long -term security independent of 7 the fortunes of EVI. Its development, however, will be guided by the goals of EVI, and it will be designed to be 'free - standing', yet compatible with the long -term conceptual plans and visions of EVI. The density of 30 houses on the 40-60 acre parcel is well within the allowance of existing zoning regulations. (Should additional cohousing neighborhoods be proposed for portions of this site, they would proceed along all the normal approvals channels at the appropriate time.) Houses will be built on an internal portion of the site, and will not affect views zaong West Haven or Route 79. The Pioneer Project will follow the cohousing model to realize the goals of energy efficiency, land and resource conservation, and community development. To maximize energy efficiency, affordability, and community sense and security, houses will be built attached, in clusters around pedestrian space, utilizing the most feasible techniques of energy conservation within each house. The Common House, also built to high standards of energy efficiency, will include kitchen, dining, children's and young people's spaces, and workshop and/or crafts space. The cohousing model offers not only housing developed by the residents themselves, designed to meet their goals of environmental conservation, but also offers the wider community a model of economically viable, highly land - conserving, aesthetic housing development. Thus, cohousing is 'sustainable' on many levels: internally, in the integrated systems of conservation, energy and land use, and community, and more broadly,', as a repticable approach to mutually supportive housing development and open space conservati, on. The Pioneer Project closely follows the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and can serve as a demonstration of one means by which those goals might be effectively and fairly realized. Land conservation, preservation of open space, reduced automobile circulation, and energy efficient and affordable housing, need not conflict with property owners', understandable desires to protect the investments and financial security they have in their land. Further, the strongly land -conserving design of the Pioneer Project will illustrate how meaningful) open spare can be designed compatibly with the housing density allowed in the current zoning. Too many projects follow the letter of existing regulations, with postage -stamp set - asides entirely peripheral to the living environments. The Pioneer Project will not only include meaningful amounts of open space, but also, through agricultural, water, and recreational projects, 'will demonstrate meaningful open space use and long -term case and enhancement. By following an integrated, multi -level approach to balancing environmental concerns with housing, the Pioneer Project can model ways of sensibly meeting complex environmental needs. Some of the concepts of environmentally focused cohousing; will demand bold creativity from the municipality. Although the project is still in the early conceptual stages and not yet designed, particular elements intrinsic to the concept do not fit tidily with existing regulations, despite their strong compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, it is essential to the land - conserving goals of the project to keep the overall footprint of the project as concentrated as possible. If small footprint is given high priority, as it is in Ithe FRoG- and Plan goals, then conflict potentially exists with the 30' height limitation (height' can compensate for smaller ground coverage), and with the number of units per building and the 30' between - building spacing (both contrary to the tight clustering desired). In addition, Common Houses, with their unique and 0 particular features, are not provided for in the zoning regulations. As the design team embarks on this project, parameters will have to be clarified. Environmental concerns are the heart-blood of this project. To allow environmental needs to dominate, to have those demands drive the planning and design process, the FROG is likely to seek a Special Land Use District designation for the 60 acre Pioneer Project. With a SLUM designation, planners can integrate complex environmental and human demands to create the most effective and viable land use and housing community possible. Unlike past, narrowly applicable SLUDs, the Pioneer Project SLUR offers the opportunity to consider the existing zoning regulations from the perspective of maintaining meaningful environmental protection as central to housing planning and design. Concepts worked through in the context of the Pioneer Project can potentially serve as beginning prototypes for the Town's own explorations of reconciling the Comprehensive Plan with existing zoning. The Pioneer Project and Municipal Services In keeping with EVI goals, the Pioneer Project is designed to tread lightly on municipal services. The road serving the houses, from Route 79 well into the site, will be private, and will be maintained by the Residents' Association. The Town will not, therefore, incur any increased highway costs or responsibility. In addition, the concept of close community, with common facilities and on -site home - working opportunities demands fewer Town services in ways that are perhaps less apparent. Closer community offers greater community surveillance, which potentially reduces both police and fire demands. When people know each other and some members of the community are around at all times, fires are detected more quickly and more likely controlled than in large, impersonal housing. Community surveillance increases personal safety and dissuades property crimes. Common facilities offer safe environments for children and young people. Closer community, augmented by options to share meal preparation and dining, has the potential to greatly enrich the lives of children in single -parent homes, and the lives of single and working parents as well. Working couples or single parents can be assured that children have companionship with adult supervision, can be relieved of the time and tension demanded for nightly shopping and meal preparation, and can have access to more (and better) recreational space than possible on their own. The safety and the social network formed by the cohousing community can thus indirectly reduce demands on Town social as well as physical services. At this point, water poses the greatest cl West Hill currently has water- supply difficulties. tank and a large portion of West Hill is old, and The reserve at the hospital tank is inadequate to higher elevations served by the system is low. iallenge to the development of the EVI project. The 6" cast iron main which serves the hospital it is not backed up with another supply system. meet fire -load demands, and the pressure at the When the Rose Hill subdivision was proposed for this site in 1988 (see Item 10), the developers envisioned supplying the 150 houses with a water system comprised of two components. One, a public hydro - pneumatic station, is generally regarded with disfavor by the 9 Town, which has had bad experiences with such a system elsewhere. The other component was an expansion of the water system up to Enfield. Although the expansion seemed imminent at the time, it no longer seems so. Given that the former solutions are infeasible, and given that the Comprehensive Plan calls for development of contingency plans to cover potential water system: failures, a new approach is being proposed. The FRoG proposes that a new Town system be built that would serve the needs of the project and at the same time enhance and back up the existing; water supply system. The new system would include a pump station at West Haven and a tank located at the highest elevation of the EcoViilage site. EcoViIlage would provide the Town with the site and engineering services, and would provide a share of the additional costs; of building the system. The problem for the FROG and the EcoVillage project is that the cost:, estimated at half a million dollars, is too great to be borne by the 30 Pioneer Project families. In addition, design and installation of a new Town system would take more time to become operational than the FRoG has available. The FRoG has devised a two -step process to address this difficulty. First, in keeping with the independence of the Pioneer Project from the rest of the EVI plan, the Pioneer Project itself will supply its water from wells (known to be good in the area) or will install a privately owned hydropneumatic pump off of the West Haven main. A dry hydrant will be constructed connected to the existing pond for fire protection. The immediate project of 30 households can be served in the short and long term with! this system. Second, the Pioneer Project would serve as a springboard for building up the resources needed to contribute to the construction of the Town system. The Pioneer Project is already almost fully subscribed, and many households are on a'waitng list' for subsequent neighborhoods. Following all the appropriate and required approval procedures, the Pioneer Project will be a model from which membership can be built to 60 or more households, the level needed to make cash contributions to the Town affordable and feasible. The FRoG will, therefore, request approval of the Pioneer Project based on the first step - a water system satisfactory for 30 cohousing units - regardless of longer range plans. At the same time, EVI and the FROG will simultaneously pursue approval of a Town water system, as described above, with the Planning Board, Town Board, neighbors, and other appropriate individuals and departments. In conclusion, the FROG hopes that it can join forces with the Town's efforts to maintain and enhance the natural environment, while at the same time meeting the needs of a diverse, ever changing population. • 10 s i V e 0 t� •1 f ?) 0 5 a ■ �, r• s: Poo Co 40 4 Ap at QUO °�Q43 �Q.O e�4a �0irrd o4 �Ode, dO� J\�'�IL CIO 0 4k 0 'o EcoVdIage i i L Mission Statement Organiza and Planning Phase tional Structure Exhibit #2 2/1/94 Minutes (a;I all , tolwAl , 0 0 Introduction "A clear vision of a sustainable future mobilizes human energies to make necessary changes, breaking out of familiar and established patterns. " Stephen Schmidheiny with the Business Council for Sustainable Development, Changing Course Mission. EcoVillage at Ithaca is a grassroots project. Its mission ' is to build a living model of sustainable development. The term "sustainable development" was the theme of a report, "Our Common Future," issued by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 under the auspices of the World Commission on Environment and Development. The report defined the concept simply as a form of development that "meets the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Since that time sustainable development has become the subject of numerous books and articles, and was the theme of the United Nations Conference on the Environment in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992. Efforts to give definition to this term will be greatly enhanced by a living model. Goal. When completed, EcoVillage at Ithaca will be an innovative demonstration project that brings a whole- systems approach to designing the human habitat. As a living laboratory of up to 500 residents and as a teaching center with a global audience through its association with an internationally prestigious university, EcoVillage will carefully integrate design for human needs (i.e., shelter, food production, and social interaction) with land and water conservation and ecosystem preservation. As a national and international model it will showcase systems and methods that are sustainable, practical, and replicable. EcoVillage at Ithaca - - -a demonstration of "sustainable development" Premises: EcoVillage at Ithaca began in 1991 as a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University. The effort has been grounded in the following premises. 1) an acknowledgement that past societal, economic, and political choices are effectively destroying the environmental balance of the planet; 2) a belief that the essential resources, technology and intelligence to creatively reverse these !deleterious effects are currently available; 3) a persuasion that there is a powerful regenerative force in natural systems which may be effectively tapped when environmentally responsible approaches to creating living systems are practiced; and,) a conviction that systemic change in environmentally sound community planning processes will occur when effectively working demonstration models are available for study and replication. Methodology: Using a participatory planning process, a diverse constituency of professionals, citizens, students, faculty, and future residents have collaborated with outstanding initial results on this project. During its first year the group helped present several educational programs on sugtainable living on the campuses of Cornell University!, and Ithaca College, and in downtown Ithaca. It incorporated EcoVillage at Ithaca as a not - for - profit membership organization and raised $400,0,00 to purchase 176 acres of land on which to develop the demonstration ecological village. The land is in the Town of Ithaca 1.5 miles from downtown and 3.5 miles from Cornell University and Ithaca College. Preliminary land use plans, call for 80 to 90 percent of the land to be conserved as open space for sustainable agriculture, recreation, and natural areas. The balance of the land will be developed with a clustered, pedestrian, mixed use residential community using the Danish Co- Housing model of neighborhood design. The village will include a center for research and teaching. Current Need: 9 The ten studies described in this document are the studies necessary to get the infrastructure, the roads and utilities built. The purpose of the studies is to develop the program and first designs for use in obtaining municipal approval for the project. Planning Studies Control and Coordination: Daily control and coordination of the planning activity will be provided by a 0 it 0 Planning Administrator. The Planning Administrator is one of three executive staff members reporting to the Board of Directors. This work involves managing the consultant hiring process for the Board of Directors, critical review of work in progress, coordinating consultants, communicating with local municipal officials, and reporting to various sections of EcoVillage. Planning Studies Oversight and Planning Participation. The EcoVillage Planning Committee is a committee of the Board of Directors. Its four original members have been meeting for upwards of six hours per week for nearly a year. They are an Architect, a Building Contractor, an environmental design student, and an engineering student. In the next few weeks the Planning Committee will be strengthened through the addition of two more professionals. They are responsible for defining the needs of the EcoVillage community and determining the nature and extend of ecological and social innovation in the project. Jointly with the Planning Administrator they reviewing drafts of all the planning studies and communicate with the larger community. Their work is supported by the Planning Coordinator, work study students, and professionals who work directly for the Planning Committee. Their Monday afternoon meetings are regularly attended by ten to twenty prospective residents, Board Members, architects, engineers, and educators. Planning Management. Planning funds are controlled directly by the Board of Directors. They review hiring and contracts, and approve major disbursements. The Planning Administrator maintains records of consultant transactions and prepares advisories to the Board regarding project cash needs. As the planning activity increases it is expected that the Planning Administrator will need the assistance of a full time administrative aid /bookkeeper. The Planning Coordinator sets up meetings, publishes schedules, facilitates at many meetings, and provides the primary liaison between the planning professionals and the First Residents Group. EcoVillage at Ithaca - - -a demonstration of "sustainable development" 0 0 M CT U r-1 LL N Om O Qw Om mo w LU LU U Z �- Q � Z_g LL U F- Z fn wD W (9 V, w Z W Z� Zg Q� JO aU f QLU mLU U F- o~ a� w0 �.0 ui C Q } W J � ma Q QZ) of �0 N LL OU Z LL Q � Q 0_ Z D �0 U Z U w Z� U Z I- z Q V) Z d0 LL U 0_ C7 D Z_ 0 F- w of U at w z ZO z U LL U ' 0 j Al IL 41 1 t --+ N6 t r r r 1 j t 1. i 4 .1 1 t it I It irk PI.Iiv.7wlw� It ILIA If I `• ,ROUTE' _ 9 - MECKLENBURG , i , : � 110 !p � f f+t 1 1 , 1L ', ,_J • �� r 3 1 } IF d IF iiki I 1 t i a ►h� ` j� trw -I t. r t 1 PROPOSED E OVILLAGE SITE` `- ' "`` !s - it .o I ..I, IF 1 3 ` � 5 I l It /c r' 1 '1 �. � � Tars' a. • I �f�\ *' , • jf( i If f � I Oro A j r I l iI Y _ t •f v r) # . I :i t• J/ . t _ J r :.. .: fi �f `..... f/ f {i J•+ 'f +f t �� + ,� �jI / ■ti /�< tff _ r /41 . t; - ., t -' . i • . � , r = . '0111 ii j .1 r�'i� J t J . {�i� Y. z�+�} .,�.�' ; +,'.J�? f t ■ •' �i All It s y u \ \i t� t: 7 IF '. Vote t If tr J f F { jo Lit 7 It fi ; f r r' •l .. ■ i T 1 y • J t 1 r i f } I. •� J' i ZA w IF ri If jo l�r Proposed EcoVillage Site SCALE 11° = 1000' TOWN OF ITHACA CORNER OF WESTHAVEN ROAD AND MECKLENBURG ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 FAX (607) 273 -1704 MEMORAINDUM TO: Planning Board Members �OPLFROM: Louise Raimondo, Planner 1 DATE: January 26, 1994 RE: CU FGEIS PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783 Candace Cornell, Steve Smith, and I met last Monday to discuss the Planning Board's responses to the public comments received. The meeting was very productive, and I have enclosed draft responses for the comments received by the Tompkins County Department of Planning, the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee. Please read these over for Tuesday's meeting and let us know at the meeting what changes or additions you would like to see. Attachment C:\CUGEIS\PB.MEM cc: Dan Walker George Frantz Exhibit #3 2/1/94 Minutes • DRAFT CORNELL UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE EXPANSION SOUTHEAST OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S MAIN CAMPUS (PROPOSED PRECINCT 7 REZONING) FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT C 40 TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY: TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 1994 Executive Summary /Abstract Table of Contents DRAFT List of Figures List of Tables I. Introduction II. Description of Action III. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD OCTOBER 19, 1993. , IV. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND COUNCILS A. Tompkins County Department of Planning Be Tompkins County Environmental Management, Council Co Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee D. New York State Department of Transportation V. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC A. Ellen Harrison Be Barbara Peckarsky Co Bruce and Doug Brittain VI. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES, WITH ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS (If none are required, this section will be omitted) DISTRIBUTION LIST APPENDICES Incorporate by reference those listed in DGEIS (no need to send all of those out again and waste reams of paper) . Minutes of Public Hearings Held October 19, 1993 peffber5r„ �� Written Comments from the Public . Preliminary Responses to Public Comments, Cornell University, Campus Planning, December 14, 19936 . Response to Water Quality Issues Cascadilla Creek, DGEIS, January 1994, Stearns and Wheler, Cazenovia, New York. . Cornell University Campus Plan, 1990. 0 2 DRAFT 9 I. Introduction This document was prepared in order to analyze possible future development of Precinct 7, a 271 acre parcel located to the southeast of Cornell's main campus. The proposal which triggered this study is to rezone these 271 acres of Cornell lands from residential (R -30) to a Special Land Use District (SLUD) or other institutional zoning district as required by the Town of Ithaca. Precinct 7, also known as the Orchards area, is bounded by Route 366 to the north, Game Farm Road to the east, Cascadilla Road to the south, and Judd Falls Road to the west. The Draft Generic Environmental Impact statement examined potential environmental impacts from the proposed rezoning, potential development plans, and mitigating measures for potential environmental impacts of developing this area. (... more on GEIS's, the DGEIS, and the FGEIS to follow) II. Description of Action Cornell University began a campus planning effort in the mid 1980's, which culminated in a set of guidelines for the development of the campus, published in 1985. A campus planning committee helped to develop a campus plan which was completed in 1990. This planning process included input from the Cornell Natural Areas Committee to set priorities for natural areas protection on the campus. Out of this ongoing campus planning came two conclusions: first, that the central campus could handle some additional development, and that uses pertaining to teaching were most appropriate for this centra core, to facilitate students and teaching staff's movements from one class to another in the course of a day. Other University lands were also studied for appropriate long term uses. A second conclusion was that the lands to the southeast of the main campus in Precinct 7 are the logical place for expansion of facilities which did not require a central campus location. Cornell University applied their future needs for possible expansion in this area against the uses permitted by the Town of Ithaca zoning, which is residential (R- 30) . The University then approached the Town with a proposed Special Land Use District more appropriate to their plans for Precinct 7. The Town requested more information on Cornell's plans for Precinct 7, and the Planning Board, acting as lead agency for the proposed rezoning, made a positive declaration of . environmental significance on May 21, 1991, declaring that the 3 DRAFT proposed rezoning might have significant adverse environmental impacts, and therefor required an environmental impact statement. Since no specific development plans had been made by the Cornell, the proper format for the environmental review process was a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS), in which various alternatives for development are examined. Cornell University has examined the environmental impacts of a development program ranging from 296,000 gross square feet of floor area (GSF) up to 41000,000 GSF. Actual development plans unknown, various scenarios examined FAR of 0.9 standard set (equivalent to Arts Quad) III. RESPONSES TO PIIBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PIIBLIC HEARINGS HELD OCTOBER 19, 1993 AND NOVEMBER 16, 1993 1. Public Comments Received at the October 19, 1993 Public Hearing A. Bruce Brittain 10 Traffic should be considered as a performance standard for the SLUR 2. The 0.8% assumed annual traffic growth rate is too low for that part of Ithaca (County traffic counts indicate a 5 to 18% annual growth rate) Be Ellen Harrison 10 Preservation of Route 366 viewshed to Mount Pleasant 2. Request for drawings of possible layout scenarios 2. Public Comments Received at the November 19, 1993 Public Hearing No members of the public gave comments at this second public hearing. IV. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PIIBLIC AGENCIES AND ADVISORY BOARDS AND COUNCILS A. Tompkins County Department of Planning: 10 Comment: What mechanism exists for making sure that impacts identified in the DGEIS (eg. stormwater management 4 • 0 is] and wetland mitigation are included in the Planning Board's review of each development proposal? .......The GEIS, its recommendations and its promises, should be referenced in the SLUD. Response: The SLUD (included in the DGEIS as Appendix 2) should reference the GEIS and its recommendations in a way that permits the GEIS to be modified and augmented over time. It is anticipated that conditions in Precinct 7 will change over time, and any new studies or information generated by Cornell University and the Town, as well as other agencies, should be considered at the time a development proposal is submitted to the Town for approval. The appropriate mechanism for incorporating suggested mitigative measures into future projects is the Town's Site Plan review process. Cornell has indicated a willingness to complete a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) and the Town will require an LEAF for each future project in order to allow the Town to fully evaluate the project with regard to the information contained in the DGEIS, FGEIS, and Findings, along with any additional information, such as traffic counts, which have been generated in the interim. 2— Comment: Some of the performance standards SLUD (f through A in particular) and vague. More detailed, object exist for items such as odor, dus etc., and we recommend that, wher finite, objective standards be us conformance. listed in the are very general ive standards do t, vibration, e possible, more ed to determine Response: Some of the performance standards listed in the draft SLUR are indeed very general. More specific standards are available, and the Town is evaluating the possibility of including more specific and detailed standards. The standards for density, height, ground coverage, setback from a public road, and noise are quite specific. The Town will evaluate the need for making these other standards more specific in light of current University practices. The more general standards are intended to serve more of a design function as proposals are being evaluated during the site plan review process than for enforcement purposes. 3. Comment: The performance standard for "noise" says acceptable sound levels depends on the Receiving Land Use Category. In the case of vacant land, the Receiving Land Use Category should be defined as the "existing land use," or "the most sensitive use permitted by zoning." 5 Response: The SLUD should include this clarification on Receiving Land Use Category. The definition "the most sensitive use permitted by zoning ",should be adde Ose he SLUD, under Section 6. Perfo nc�ndards, ( .``) o as fo ows: "No use shall er or e e ope ted any source of sound in such a mar a o create a and level which exceed the limits set forth for the nd use category stated a(, below when measured at the bounda of the site nearest the receiving land use (defined as the most sensitive land use ermitEl�d by zoning] on This 'li rification wou insure that pot tial future residential areas were a quately ro ected from jac nt uses gene i g high eve1 o nois Ad Ltional p tecti of natur --Cyre- s_, from p tial isy uses will achieve by -a - =se ack of l(�,�`% feet on which no development wi. 1 be permitt 4. Comment: The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) discusses above ground floor area, but there seems to be the potential, at least in the long term, for underground construction in Precinct 7. The definition of the FAR ought to include all human occupied space, whether above or below ground. Response: FAR is not intended to address underground space. There may be underground space in addition to the FAR space cam' levels. The FAR is intended to govern the proportion of a building to the surrounding open space of a given building site. Cornell University has assured the Town . that the maximum of 4 miJEEZon GSF wig I- include all space including underground areas. The Town wi uireabasement areas tome included in GSF calculations. 56 Comment: While we applaud the fact that the unique natural areas and important wetlands are to be left undeveloped, we are concerned that the need for creation of wetland mitigation areas are to be determined "at the time an individual permit is applied for" (page II -76). This project by project approach to wetlands creation will be far less effective (both environmentally and economically) than if a "high- side" estimate of wetland destruction was estimated, and one large wetland was created (or, even better, a pristine wetland was purchased) to offset the wetland losses. Response: Cornell conducted a wetlands inventory for the • DGEIS, as illustrated in Figure 21, Page II -68, in order to 6 AI identify those areas. Section II (d.) discusses Precinct 7 wetlands and potential impacts to these wetlands. The DGEIS has identified the most significant wetlands in Precinct 7 as being those located in the Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods areas, which have been identified by Tompkins County as Unique Natural Areas worthy of protection. Cornell and the Town have agreed on a policy that no development shall occur in these high quality habitat areas. The development program presented in the DGEIS proposes that these areas be left in their natural state. The primary impact to wetlands as noted in the DGEIS is the potential need to cross them with roads at several locations. These locations are the wetland area directly opposite Tower Road and the north -south oriented wetland "finger" south of the library annex. Best management practices (BMP's) for these crossings are discussed on Pages II -75 -76 of the DGEIS under mitigating measures for disturbing wetlands (list m & m's here ?) BMP's for wetland fills are also discussed in this section, but it is the Town's policy to discourage filling of wetlands, and the Town will continue this policy in its review of future Precinct 7 development proposals. Since wetland losses will be minimal and limited to road crossings, and high quality wetlands as identified in the natural areas will be protected by a policy of no development, wetland impacts should be minimal, and the need for creation of additional wetland mitigation areas is not anticipated. • Wetland disturbance includes using these areas as stormwater retention areas. Such plans should be carefully designed to protect the wetland involved, and untreated stormwater runoff should not be discharged directly into wetlands. Pretreatment by practices such as infiltration, overland flow through vegetated areas, and retention /detention basins can effectively mitigate impacts from stormwater runoff. The Town will evaluate all proposals for stormwater management and possible discharge into wetlands to insure they are protective of the wetlands. 6. Comment: Page I -52 of the DGEIS states that "A pedestrian connection to the central campus will be installed when the population in Precinct 7 supports such a facility." Could pedestrian traffic be defined in terms of threshold, as automobile traffic impacts have been defined? Response: The proposed pedestrian connection should be built when that area of the Precinct has been developed with a degree of population that would use the connection. Rather than an abstract number of people, the majority of whom might or might not use such a connection, Cornell University has proposed that this become part of a site plan for the developed area when there • is an obvious user group. Cornell has proposed bicycle and 7 • • pedestrian paths for Precinct 7, as illustrated in Figure 24 (include ?), Page II -101 of the DGEIS. The main Cornell campus is generally pedestrian friendly, and there is no reason for the Town to believe that Cornell will not continue this policy as it develops Precinct 7. Be Tompkins County Environmental Management Council 1. Comment: An avifauna (bird) survey should be conducted in the breeding season (the DGEIS survey was conducted in February). A breeding season survey for amphibian and reptilian life would also provide more information. Response: While it is true that breeding bird, amphibian, and reptile surveys would provide additional information, Cornell has already conducted an extensive study of the area and identified areas of high quality habitat: the Cascadilla Creek Corridor and McGowan Woods. The University has stated that their policy in developing Precinct 7 is to protect these areas. The Town will conduct a thorough review of all future development projects to insure that these significant habitat areas are protected. A buffer zone o ' ^ ^o —f 1 ?nsurP�t these natural areas are adequately protected, along with their resident.. fauna. ,,.�Q� ►� Gm�,,' wu.�g� The remainder of Precinct 7 lands have been intensely disturbed for agricultural uses (cultivated fields and the orchards) or consist of buildings and maintained grounds, and are not quality habitat. It is unlikely, therefore, that additional surveys would identify any rare, threatened, or endangered species requiring special protection, as such species have not been identified by this study nor previous studies made by Ostman and Marks and the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has no record of such species for this area in their database. Additional site surveys for flora and fauna, therefore, will not be required. 2. Comment: Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods are important natural areas. The proposed natural areas setback of 30 feet is inadequate. These areas are important as habitat areas and have aesthetic value to local residents who use the corridor for recreation. Continued fragmentation negatively impacts species diversity. Response: The Cascadilla Creek corridor and McGowan Woods are natural areas of high quality habitat which should be • preserved. Therefore, a buffer of 100 feet from these areas, the border having been determined in Cornell Plantations staff as well as Town staff, surveyed and shown on a map entitled and dated . DRAFT the border of the field by and later 3. Comment: The addition of paved surfaces and roof tops should have been taken into account in runoff predictions. Response: Stormwater management is discussed in Section B. of the DGEIS, Water Resources. A detailed stormwater analysis including estimates for runoff created by impervious surfaces is included in the DGEIS as Appendix 4. It is essential that runoff impacts include an estimate of impervious surfaces. The DGEIS discusses a conceptual framework for stormwater management, but detailed designs have not yet been completed. It is anticipated that the Town will require these prior to any major project involving regrading for each subarea examined in the GEIS. In order to protect the water quality of Cascadilla Creek, a system of wet retention areas has been proposed by the University as shown in Figure 19, Page II -38 of the DGEIS (include here ?) Additionally, Best Management Practices (BMP's ) as described in Section I.F.2.a, Pages I -50 -52 (list here ?). Cornell has already begun the design phase for several of these structures in the vicinity of the former refuse disposal area (Include preliminary draft design here ?) The Town will have review authority over the design and construction of the proposed retention /detention systems. Cornell will be building these retention basins in accordance with the NYS DEC's Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development. All plans of this nature will be subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. Runoff from impervious surfaces such as buildings and paved areas will be required in the predicted runoff calculations for the design of these structures. The Town will require runoff to closely approximate natural flow conditions. A 100 foot vegetated buffer zone will be required between Precinct 7 and the border of the Cascadilla Creek corridor to further protect the creek from potential adverse impacts of development. In order to respond to questions raised about potential impacts to Cascadilla Creek, Cornell contracted with Stearns and Whe,' er` Environmental Engineers and Scientists (Appendix _) to study the issue. Water quality impacts are discussed in depth in Section V. of this document in response to comments made by Ellen garrison and Barbara Peckarsky. 4. Comment: To what extent will all potential impacts of all • the proposed (not -yet- identified) developments be 9 considered by the Town? Impacts should be ® considered in their totality, rather than in a piecemeal fashion, as would be the case when each proposed development comes up for review. Response: The GEIS is designed to describe thresholds of development and mitigations for overall impacts rather than specific projects. Because specific projects are not known at this point in the planning process, a Generic EIS is the established format for evaluating potential overall environmental impacts of Precinct 7 development. The first phase of the GEIS project was essentially completed with the acceptance of the DGEIS by the Planning Board for public review. The completion of the draft document took over two years, and the draft evolved as an ongoing process of review and comment by the Town, the Town's consultant, Cornell University, and Cornell's consultants. The DGEIS is the culmination of many hours of hard work and negotiation on the part of all involved to adequately address the issues surrounding rezoning and developing Precinct 7. The Final EIS will address public comments and will modify those areas in the DGEIS that were found to be too vague or otherwise unacceptable. The Town has taken the lead role in completing the Final GEIS to insure that overall development impacts have been adequately addressed. Town staff has been working with the Planning Board towards this goal. The Planning Board appointed a special committee to assist staff in drafting the FGEIS for full Board review. The Planning Board will then be responsible for completing detailed Findings on the GEIS. The Findings statement for this action, which is to rezone Precinct 7 from a residential to a Special Land Use District or other institutional zone, if approved, must balance adverse environmental impacts against the needs and benefits of the action. Reasons supporting approval or disapproval must be given in the form of facts and conclusions that are derived from the Draft and Final EIS. They represent the framework upon which future decision - making regarding development of Precinct 7 will occur. The Town, through the site plan review process and the environmental review which will be conducted for each proposed project will address project- specific impacts at a later date. By looking at overall impacts now, we will insure that adverse impacts will not occur incrementally. • Comment Consideration of requiring double -sided copies in the FGEIS and use of recycled paper Response: The Draft EIS was printed on double -sided recycled 10 • paper, with the exception of some of the appendices. The Final EIS, being prepared by the Town will be printed on double -sided paper. The Town does not currently have a policy on the purchase of recycled paper, largely because of the higher cost of recycled paper. aa-e - - e- stimuratirrg�rlie-re-cycled- paper — industry conserves o a esources, the Planning Board will consider making a rectmmen n t- $ead- --e-a- policy to purchase r ger-. (The -- Planning Board may also s gu gesE that the Town BSard"tiave the Conservation Board study__the_ma� er and make a,- ret' �rnm endation to the Town Board. Let me know what you all thin �t s subj ec,t.� =. - Candace ?? )- - C. Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee 1. Comment: The proposed 30 foot setback from natural areas is not appropriate. A variable setback based upon site specific conditions should be considered. If a variable setback is not acceptable, then the non - flexible setback should be established using the "worst case scenario" -- the most sensitive natural area in Precinct 7 coupled with a construction project of the highest magnitude of impact. Response: The subject of an appropriate setback from the significant natural areas identified in Precinct 7 has been discussed in depth by the Planning Board and Town of Ithaca staff. The Cascadilla Creek corridor serves as significant habitat area and recreation area, the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Both the Cascadilla Creek corridor and McGowan Woods were identified by Tompkins County in its Unique Natural Areas Inventory. Therefore, the corridor and McGowan Woods deserve an appropriate amount of protection. Various scenarios for protecting the corridor and the woods were examined. Rather than a variable setback with minimum no build buffer zone of 30 feet, as proposed in the DGEIS, a continuous setback of 100 feet from the border of these areas, the border having been determined in the field by Cornell Plantations staff as well as Town staff, and later surveyed and shown on a map entitled and dated was chosen. This buffer zone would be considered a no build zone, in which no new construction would be permitted, and which should remain vegetated and be protected by temporary fencing during construction of adjacent land. This is in effect, using the "worst case scenario" approach to ensure these sensitive areas are adequately protected from adverse impacts associated with development of Precinct 7. • 29 Comment: Adequacy of traffic count information in DGEIS; 11 DRAFT possible need for additional traffic count data. • Possible options: accept traffic counts, but require a supplemental EIS for every project which will increase traffic in the study area, establish and amended threshold for which such studies would be required, or have Cornell finance a study to be conducted by the Town to assess the current traffic situation. Response: These comments will be covered in the following two sections. (Staff and the PB FGEIS Committee will discuss traffic issues the week of 1 \31 \94.) 3, Comment: We urge the University to set a precedent in this region by avoiding all negative impacts to wetland of any size during the development of Precinct 7. Presently, the drainage construction being performed behind the Library Annex requires the alteration of several small wetlands in the Cascadilla Creek corridor. Projects of this sort can be designed to avoid impacting these sensitive areas. Response: Cornell conducted a wetlands inventory for the DGEIS, as illustrated in Figure 21, Page II -68, in order to • identify those areas. Section II (d.) discusses Precinct 7 wetlands and potential impacts to these wetlands. The DGEIS has identified the most significant wetlands in Precinct 7 as being those located in the Cascadilla Creek and McGowan Woods areas, which have been identified by Tompkins County as Unique Natural Areas worthy of protection. Cornell and the Town have agreed on a policy that no development shall occur in these high quality habitat areas. The development program presented in the DGEIS proposes that these areas be left in their natural state. The primary impact to wetlands as noted in the DGEIS is the potential need to cross them with roads at several locations. These locations are the wetland area directly opposite Tower Road and the north -south oriented wetland "finger" south of the library annex. Best management practices (BMP's) for these crossings are discussed on Pages II -75 -76 of the DGEIS under mitigating measures for disturbing wetlands (list m & m's here ?) BMP's for wetland fills are also discussed in this section, but it is the Town's policy to discourage filling of wetlands, and the Town will continue this policy in its review of future Precinct 7 development proposals. Wetland disturbance includes using these areas as stormwater retention areas. Such plans should be carefully designed to protect the wetland involved, and untreated stormwater runoff • should not be discharged directly into wetlands. Pretreatment by 12 • T I : U121 practices such as infiltration, overland flow through vegetated areas, and retention /detention basins can effectively mitigate impacts from stormwater runoff. The Town will evaluate all proposals for stormwater management and possible discharge into wetlands to insure they are protective of the wetlands. 13