Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2013-10-21 Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, October 21, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. F "�# 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 g Agenda 1. Review of draft agendas 2. Continue Review of Draft Comprehensive Plan 3. Consider Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Town Board Minutes — September 23, 2013 b. Town of Ithaca Abstract 4. Report of Town Officials 5. Report of Town Committees 6. Intermunicipal Organizations 7. Review of Correspondence 8. Consider Adjournment Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Monday, October 21,2013 Study Session Present: Herb Engman, Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Rich DePaolo and Rod Howe Absent: Tee Ann Hunter Staff: Susan Ritter, Dan Tasman and Paulette Terwilliger Mr. Engman reported that the Town has closed on the property on Pine Tree Road and the donor of the land wishes to remain anonymous to the extent possible. There was a brief discussion on the possible naming of the property with the suggestion of the Pine Tree Road Wildlife Preserve. Mr. DePaolo thought dropping the word"road"would be nicer. Mr. Engman will ask the donors. He summarized the transaction stating that 14 acres were donated along with $40,000 for maintenance, the Town paid$11,000 to the Finger Lakes Land Trust for stewardship and $1,000 for the analysis of the property and filing fees. He noted that the donors have no objection to a community garden and there is interest in that area for one and there is already a trail. We hope to have a group "adopt" it. Draft Comprehensive Plan To-Do List: Discuss Cornell comments: First—Need to decide whether to revisit the residential density range for the Neighborhood Center character district which is their East Hill Village. Ms. Ritter reported that she looked more closely at the comments and what they are proposing and they had cut and pasted their East Hill Village summary and in it they are using an overall project density greater than 15 units per acre and the Village core greater than 30 units per acre. They feel this "helps conserve land and open space and promotes livability, transportation efficiency and walkability." So that is what they were referring to when they said they were looking for a higher density. We currently have a range of 4-18 units per acre so some could be as low as 4 or as dense as 18, but the average throughout a Neighborhood Center neighborhood would be 8-12. Mr. DePaolo asked a general question about how we are using this terminology. Average is usually one number, not a range and this is a fairly wide range for an average. Mr. Tasman explained that in our current Comp Plan we just have a maximum so that means it's a range of zero to X as a density. So what we are proposing is you have a minimum and a maximum density. A minimum ensures that that land is developed to a certain density that is going to be able to support the mixed-use functions and the ability to prevent sprawl, preserve open space, etc. It allows some flexibility; if were to say the average was a single number, say 12 an acre, how do you arrange things to get exactly 12 units an acre at build out. The average range allows for that flexibility. Mr. Engman said what we are trying to do, at least partially, is to identify where development should take place and where it should not, or take place less intensively. So the key is in those areas where we do want developments to take place, and East Hill Plaza is one of them, then what sort of density do we really want to encourage or allow. It looks like we have the difference of the 30 that Cornell is suggesting and our suggestion of 18 so we have a gap. He asked what the Board's feelings were about how dense, dense should be. Adopted 11-8-2013 1 Ms. Leary said she would usually go for less, but in this case, if they have a plan for it, she would not be opposed to it. Mr. Levine asked if that meant she thought they should come in for a variance for that then. Ms. Ritter reminded the Board that this density would be good for any Neighborhood Center so it would be East Hill and South Hill Neighborhood Centers. Mr. Engman asked if the density of 30 was like Collegetown or State Street. Ms. Ritter responded that she and Mr. Tasman discussed that and it depends on how you are measuring the area and what have you excluded in it as well as what are those units. For example, if a lot of that development was for families, they would be multi bedrooms and take up more space whereas if you are talking housing for grad students they would be studio, one or at most 2 bedroom units that might take up less space. So it does matter what type of buildings you are looking at and they felt they were probably looking at grad students and you could probably fit a few more than what we have suggested. Discussion followed on what that would look like and whether it was what we wanted. Ms. Ritter said they thought we could raise it some, but maybe not quite as high as they want. They were looking at changing it to a range of 6-24 units/acre with an average of 8-16units/acre. Mr. Goodman asked if we could tweak those ranges during the zoning process and Ms. Ritter said we could. The ranges really come into play with transects so you have a center with gradually less density as you move away from the center. We can vary the width of transects and influence developments that way etc. The Board decided to change the density to range of 6-30 units/acre with an average of 8-16 units/acre. Second—The comment regarding extending the Institutional Zone was revisited. Ms. Ritter thought they were confusing zoning ad character maps and they have talked to different representatives to explain. They are afraid they won't be able to do what they want and they want little sections broken out; this is not site planning but rather character mapping and they will understand eventually. Planning did not think the Plan threatens their vision. Third—Decide on the density for New Neighborhood character district(range and average); this issue was raised for West Hill but the decision would pertain to all New Neighborhood areas. The current is a range of 2-12units/acre with an average of 4-6 units/acre. Ms. Ritter and Mr. Tasman were comfortable with increasing it a bit. Mr. DePaolo thought if we were going to increase the density ranges we should decrease the area that it is allowed in. Mr. Tasman said some areas have come off as discussed at previous meetings. Mr. DePaolo said it would depend on what we do with the areas and maybe we should jump forward a bit and come back to this after discussing the areas. Fourth—Decide on character district designation for the "triangle" at Coddington, Troy and King Roads—New Neighborhood or Semi-Rural Neighborhood? Mr. Engman didn't remember the Committee having strong feelings about this. Discussion followed on the topography and possible types of services and development that could happen. The Board decided to go with Semi-Rural. Adopted 11-8-2013 2 Fifth—Decide on the character district for the Holochuck property—Established Neighborhood or Semi-Rural? Ms. Ritter said that according to legal counsel,until they have significant investment and substantial progress we can make land use changes to the parcel. We had designated it Established Neighborhood because we thought it was going to happen but now that is not clear at all. It is currently zoned as a mix of Low Density Residential, Conservation Zone, and Medium Density Residential. Semi-Rural seems to match that. Mr. DePaolo asked about the land deal with the State Parks and whether that would be affected and Ms. Ritter said the transaction will be any day now and no effect to what we are discussing now. There were no guarantees to the developer or anyone else. They could go ahead with their project right now as approved until such time as we get this process completed and new zoning in place. Discussion followed on the character designations and color codes. There will be flexibility in each of the designations either by ranges or through the re-zoning process. Ms. Leary disagreed with everything being rural because we have to build up there somewhere. Ms. Ritter said the property is odd and does not lend itself to the other characteristic zones. The Semi-Rural does allow flexibility and would not stop housing. The Board decided to change the property to Semi-Rural. Sixth—Going back to the question of changing character designations on West Hill. New Neighborhood would be a range of 2-14 units/acre with an average of 5-8 units/acre. Seventh—Decide on density for agricultural and conservation zones. Ms. Ritter did some research and when the town established conservation zones there was a court case and lowering density on zones, the court agreed that lowering a density to 5 acre lot sizes was acceptable. We saw this case and we were trying to figure out our own but wanted a little higher, so we went with 7 so that is where it came from and then they used the same for the Ag Zone. Mr. Engman thought the Committee picked 15 because we were really interested in protecting farmland and 15 would protect it twice as well as 7; there was no magic to the number and the Committee didn't think the agricultural community would object but since then we have heard they do. Some of those objections are from not really understanding what it would do but at this point we have to figure it out. Mr. Howe suggested 10 would be a good compromise. Mr. DePaolo said it seems that if the major objection is that you are removing someone's ability to monetize their land and if this is supposed to be agricultural land and people are actually farming it and receiving certain benefits for doing so, such as tax benefits or through farming benefits, why would we want to do anything that doesn't try and preserve that land? If you are not making money farming, you shouldn't be farming. Mr. Howe said they have heard about wanting to provide homes for their children and Mr. DePaolo said but that would open the gates for any housing. Mr. Tasman also said this number is trying to protect against building on the road frontage. Mr. Engman repeated his often made comment that there is also the philosophical thought which is the moment you sell the lot you are a developer and whether there is an overwhelming public Adopted 11-8-2013 3 good to think of and therefore should we try to keep that land open and available for farming. Discussion followed on aesthetics, curb cuts, etc. The Board decided to make the number 12 so a 12 acre density requirement. They stayed with 15 for Conservation. Eighth—Ms. Ritter brought up a couple of minor issues she has found. She wants to move the Conservation Zone around Five Mile Drive a smidge and the area around the South Hill Business Campus a smidge. The Board agreed. There was a discussion on the Ag Zone around Elmira Rd and one owner is finding it hard to do anything with her property because of the topography. Discussion followed on what could or should happen in that area. The Board decided that since the owner had no clear idea or plan on what she would like to do, a change can't be made. Ms. Leary reminded Ms. Ritter that she had requested affordable housing be defined as a percentage of your income, not median income or below median income. Ms. Ritter said that she will come up with a definition for the next meeting. The Implementation section would outline the process and prioritize. Mr. Engman said there might be time at the meeting on the 7th to discuss and adopt the revised draft and start to go over the implantation section and move forward with the process. Ms. Ritter said she will have the new Chapter 5 and the revised Land Use Map in time for the meeting on the 7th Agenda Item Town of Ithaca Abstract TB Resolution No. 2013 -136: Town of Ithaca Abstract Whereas the following numbered vouchers have been presented to the Ithaca Town Board for approval of payment; and Whereas the said vouchers have been audited for payment by the said Town Board; now therefore be it Resolved that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the said vouchers in total for the amounts indicated. VOUCHER NOS. 4418 - 4506 General Fund Town wide 42,555.75 General Fund Part Town 7,716.12 Highway Fund Part Town 30,151.79 Water Fund 14,527.51 Sewer Fund 4,755.35 Salt Storage Building Replacement 574.22 Whitetail Drive Reconstruction 4,192.00 Danby Road Water Main Replace 37,607.12 Adopted 11-8-2013 4 Fire Protection Fund 264,792.00 Forest Home Lighting District 44.92 Glenside Lighting District 17.84 Renwick Heights Lighting District 23.75 Eastwood Commons Lighting District 30.86 Clover Lane Lighting District 4.13 Winner's Circle Lighting District 6.14 Burleigh Drive Lighting District 14.40 West Haven Road Lighting District 57.02 Coddington Road Lighting District 33.16 TOTAL 407,104.08 Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rod Howe Vote: Ayes—Goodman, Howe, Engman, DePaolo, Levine and Leary Other Mr. Engman reported that the sale of the Emerson site is going to be announced soon and Meeting adjourned upon motion and a second at 6:15p.m. Adopted 11-8-2013 5 72 Acres 10 Lots - 31 Acres 4 Lots 69 Acres ... 70 Acres 9 Lots42 Acres -joLots 16 Acres 6 Lots 2 Lots 57 Acres f 8 Lots 1127 Acres 18 Lots 20 AcresaLo,s29A=,|lU 23 Acres 3 Lots 20 Acres 2 Lots 371 Acres 53 Lots 252 Acres 36 Lots 91 Acres • Acres 13 Lots 13 Lots56 Acres 8 Lots0 Acres 2 Lots Note: There are currently 43 properties (+/- 3,461 acres) that could be subdivided using the existing 7 acre density requirement, creating approximately 477 new lots. 39 Aces 5Lo106 Acres 15 Lots 25AerfS 3 Lots 95 Acres' 13 Lots 239 Acres 34 Lots 115 Acres 16 Lots 106 Acres 15 Lots4Acres 19 Acres7 Lots 2 Lots 90 ACTes 39 Acres 12 Lots 5 Lots 38 Acres 9 Lots 38 Acres 5 Lots 55 Acres 7 Lots 18 Acres 2 Lots ?f^?:/l^4Acres 145 Acres 20 Lots 72Acres 10 Lots A ' 47 Acres r i?: 6 Lots 1 279 Acres 39 Lots '' i 127 Acres 18 Lots Town of Ithaca Planning Department Februarys, 2013 a 72 Acres 31 Acres 4 Lots 2 Lots 69 Acres 4 Lots70 Acres 42 Acres 4 Lots 2 Lots In rrj^ ntfrT) 57 Acres 3 Lots 127 Acres 6 Lots V 252 Acres 16 Lots 371 Acres 24 Lots 93 Acres 6 Lots 91 Acres 6 Lots56 Acres 3 Lots Note: There are 32 properties (+/- 3,242 acres) that could be subdivided using the proposed 15 acre density requirement, creating approximately 199 new lots. 39 Acps 2Loi106 Acres 7 LotsC/J 0 59 Acres 3 Lots 95 Acres 6 Lots 239 Acres 15 Lots glllSAcres 7 Lots 106 Acres 7 Lots • .1 90Acres [39 Acres 6 Lots ;' 2 Lots Acres Lots 38 Acres 69 Acres 1 5 Lots Acres 145 Acres 9 Lots 47 Acres 3 Lots 279 Acres WfWiS Town of Ithaca Planning Department February^ 2013 > 6 It>/ai/i3 id ^ 1 Cornell University Facilities Services Kyu]ung Whang Vice President Facilities Services 101 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, New York 14853-3701 1607.255.4394 f. 607.255.4588 e. kw253iil?cornell.edu September 77,2013 To: Mr. Herb Engman Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 From: Kyujung Whang Vice President for Facilities Services Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 Re:Cornell Universitv^s comments on the Revised Comprehensive Plan Update for the Town of Ithaca, Draft for Review December 5.2012 Dear Herb, We appreciate the ongoing conversation with the Town of Ithaca regarding the Town's Comprehensive Plan Update and this opportunity to present our comments on the revised December 5, 2012 draft. The meeting that my Cornell colleagues had with you. Bill Goodman, Sue Ritter and Dan Tasman and representatives of other institutions located in the Town on January 22,2013 was very helpful. We have taken the additional time to consult with a variety of our departments and units, and Mina Amundsen and Tom LiVigne have met twice subsequently with Sue Ritter and Dan Tasman to review the concepts for the potential development of East Hill Plaza and to provide a more detailed overview of our campus master plan. Our comments here are in addition to those made previously. We welcome the opportunity to discuss all of them more fully at your earliest convenience. Except for general comments, our concerns and comments are listed roughly in the order of the draft plan document. Technical corrections were sent separately to the Town Planning Department staff. General Comments: There is much to commend the December 5*^ draft. By singling out for comment the few that are of concern to Cornell we are by no means overlooking the accomplishments of your undertaking so far and congratulate you. use • We also support the community vision statement and the focus on creating a sustainable community. As you know this focus has been a driver of Cornell's campus planning effort and its development philosophy as well. • We greatly appreciate the recognition of institutions of higher education and others serving the public interest as key elements in the Town's development The support for their diverse natures/ land uses and needs for flexibility to plan for the advancement of their respective missions/ was nicely reflected in Goal LU-5-A. • We also appreciate the support expressed for future zoning to recognize institutional and institutional zoning districts/ to "address the unique environment of colleges and universities (Appendix B-ZB)." • It is critical for uS/ and/ we think beneficial to both flie Town and Cornell/ that Cornell's need to ensure capacity for future growth be recognized as part of its unique environment/ and fostered/ while adhering to goals of sustainable development and Smart Growth/ preserving connectivity and alternative modes of transportation/ attractive character and quality of life/ to name just a few of the principles of the Cornell Campus Master Plan ("CMF'). • Cornell's reservations about the Town's draft Comprehensive Plan Update in regard to ensuring Cornell's capacity for future growth will become clearer in comments found below. Perhaps because of the passage of time/ turn-over among Town offidalS/ and different Town staff are now involved in the Town's Comprehensive Plan Update effort than were involved in the discussions and outreach surrounding Cornell's CMP/ we see that the Town's draft plan update does not consistently deal with Cornell's lands and strategy for ensuring capacity for growth. We at Cornell are ready to renew our efforts to discuss with the Town's leadership and planners the application of the many principles of good planning that your draft Comprehensive Plan Update and our CMP have in common. We think such discussion will lay a foundation for support of Cornell's need to preserve capacity for future growfli through appropriate zoning characterizations in ways that will be consistent with most of the goals of the Town's draft plan. • The idea of streamlining the development review processes/ as mentioned at the January 22/ 2013 meeting with representatives of the Town's four major institutions and in Goi ED-l-E is an excellent concept for institutions as well as for-profit businesses. • Whether by oversight or due to the preliminary nature of the draft/ there are several areas of the draft plan update that are inconsistent with existing conditions and the Town's stated goals for mstitutions. We are concerned that if these areas are not examined and adjusted at this draft stage they will influence eventual zoning changes and imdo our mutual goals for sustainable campus development and the welcomed reco^tion that institutional planning needs are very different from the planning needs for discrete parcels of land held by diverse owners. At your earliest convenience we ivould like to disaiss these areas mth you and your staff. Many but not all of the areas are mentioned below. specific Comments: 1. LU-1, Land Use and Development (Chapter 2): Having recently completed our own long-range CMP based upon compact mixed use development and the principles of Smart Growth, Cornell is supportive of the Town's Smart Growth approach to land use and development. The Cornell CMP process reached out to the Town's leadership, planning staff, and residents for in-depth comment and discussions that influenced our CMP. The Town's draft Comprehensive Plan Update and Cornell's CMP share an interest in sustainable development and smart growth, alternative modes of transportation, natural resource stewardship, balanced economic development, quality of life and attractive character of the Town. Our mutual interests were also furthered by the successful partnering between the Town and Cornell on the 2009 transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS), which is mentioned under Transportation in Chapter 2. 2. LU-5, Land Use and Development (Chapter 2): The goals under LU-5 make a commendable start toward what could evolve into a finely tuned harmony and imderstanding between the Town and Cornell so that they become mutually responsive to our respective goals. According to Appendix B (Existing Conditions/Supporting Information) of the December 5 draft of the Comp Plan Update, "...f/ie intent of tiie (existing patchxvork of zoning) districts does not reflect the reality of the underlying use. The hulk of the Cornell university campus in the Toxvn ... is zoned LDR,,..Zoning in the Toxvn of Ithaca regards college and university campuses as a collection of discrete parcels, even though the campus functions as a single entity. While conventional zoning considers that uses in a particular district xoill he static and seldom change, post-secondary institutions are dynamic, vihrant organizations, xoith evolving missions and ever- changing needs for its buildings and properties." To this important (and welcome) observation in your draft, we would like to ask the Town to consider other factors that we think will be helpful in imderstanding existing conditions and informing the sort of zoning needed to accommodate future development of the Cornell campus: • Under a single structure Cornell is responsible for both a private endowed institution and the state land grant contract colleges. • Cornell's unusual character is expressed physically in the layout of the 2,300 acre main campus which includes an urbanized core interwoven with open lands actively used for educational purposes. • About half of this urbanized core campus and the remaining portion of the main campus (which together constitute the major and most diverse portion of our campus in terms of usage and density) are located within the Town of Ithaca. • Cornell's "open" lands include both principal and supporting uses that are critical to the university's broad land grant mission (teaching, research, extension outreach). They are managed for a wide range of educational uses by different colleges and units. • A significant element of the Cornell CMFs long term vision for future development is also expected to be located in this part of campus. It wHl include mixed use redevelopment at the core and edges to support what we see as our shared goals for smart growth, transportation and walkable communities and projects that enable core campus densihcation and sprawl prevention. In this, we think the Cornell CMP is consistent with the Town's recommendation on Page 59 in the Draft Comp Plan Update which states, " [djevelopntent in tJte institutional district should be guided by master plans that reflect current best practice in campus planning and land steivardship/' In our view, the foregoing observations or factors help to shed light on an essential concept of the Cornell CMP. Namely that a complex interplay of educational "open" spaces has been very carefully and thoughtfully balanced in the Cornell CMP to ensure enough capacity for long term growth. We hope to engage the Town in an examination of this concept with us. Examining it calls for grappling with at least three key present and future conditions. (A) What appears to be "open" space to an outsider is not just open space. Cornell's includes natural areas, ecological corridors, farm fields and research plots, arboretum and botanical gardens for study, and athletic and recreational fields and (B) while the need for the varied activities that function in "open" space is unlikely to cease, the placement and arrangement is generally dynamic and evolves over time. Also that (C) long term growth must manage to keep amenities, housing and services for Cornell students, staff and faculty within easy walking, biking or transit distance. As mentioned in the general comments we think a better understanding of Cornell's strategic long-range planning with respect to preserving capacity for future growth and the present and future interplay of open spaces and built space ~ while preserving the best of Cornell and the best that good planning can offer us and our commimity - will be key in the coming weeks and months. We look forward to engaging the Town in such discussions. 3. LU-5-A, Land Use and Development (Chapter 2): The potential Institutional Land Use designation will help in allowing greater densities among the existing built footprint, and mixed uses that will optimize land, walkability and the campus experience. We also appreciate that the Institutional land use classification would recognize the diversity of our needs and includes some (although not all) of the open lands essential to our academic needs. Unfortunately, the exclusion of several areas on our main campus from the draft description of an Institutional district, would seriously impact our ability to carry out our mission now and in the future. The excluded areas include buildings and lands used for nearly a century for active research and teaching. This exclusion is possibly an oversight by the drafters, since other similar areas are included. In any event, we would be very appreciative if a priority could be placed on re-examining these areas before the next draft is issued. We are happy to discuss them with you further. 4. Agricultural Land Use AG-1 et seq. (Chapter 2): The areas of the main campus proposed to be included in the Agriculture land use category are highly diverse. While a few of them are managed by our Agricultural Services, others are used by Athletics as playing fields or by the College of Veterinary Medicine as paddocks for the care of their research animals. In the case of Cornell lands for agricultural research, we are glad to note that while several of them are indeed included under institutional use, others are imaccountably mismatched and designated as Agriculture or Conservation zones. These designations also fall in the category of areas we would like to re-examine with you at your earliest convenience. 5. Reserve Areas, Natural/Open, Future Land Use Plan (Chapter 3): We noticed the inclusion of some institutional uses in the Reserve Area character district. Natural/ Open. Neither the existing nor planned activities in these areas are consistent with the listed purpose and criteria for this district. We respectfully request that such inclusions be revisited as well. We look forward to assisting you in imderstanding their present uses and long term program. • One example of the mismatch is that now the Natural/Open character district includes ".. .arhoretums... natural sciences research and education ..." However, the Purpose of this district states that it is"...intended for lands that should be kept in a natural or semi-natural state...To the maximum extent, structural improvements xoill be limited. Uses xoill be mainly of a passive nature, related to the aesthetic, educational and scientific enjoyment of the land." The Arboretum and the Farm Services fields are decidedly not in a natural or semi-natural state, but programmed and used for educational activities of a very different nature. Our colleagues from Cornell Plantations do not feel that this is an appropriate designation for the Botanical Gardens or the Newman Arboretum, which are horticultural display and managed study areas. • The criteria for this Natural/Open character district state that it is"...assigned to largely undeveloped and uncultivated areas tluit are deserving of special attention for preservation and protection. It includes land approximating or reverting to a natural state, enxnronmentally sensitive lands, important natural areas, large parks and preserves, and land unsuitable for settlement or agriculture due to topography, Itydrology, or soils condition ..." To cite another example of a mismatch, the present usage of the land between Game Farm Road and East Hill Plaza (by two academic units. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) and Cornell Athletics Department) does not meet the suggested criteria. • While enhancing protection for any truly sensitive, uniquely important natural areas that are not currently protected is important, the language of the draft Plan Update would potentially include many Cornell-managed lands that are successional habitats or grasslands/ shrublands of low natural resource value but could be considered for the time being as "reverting to a natural state." These are in many cases managed for educational purposes and cannot revert to a truly natural state. • The Cornell lands that could meet the definition of "reverting to a natural state" without being environmentally sensitive have varied purposes. Some are envisioned for future development such as workforce housing that will benefit the Town, working residents, and the Town's employers. Located near established or future appropriate mixed-use centers that are served by transportation networks, they will prevent suburban and rural sprawl. Such land could offer needed workforce housing in the Town. It would also tend to keep more of the workforce from driving out for housing to the rural towns and counties surrounding Ithaca, and in turn driving back to or through the Town for work. To cite one, Cornell land adjoining the Town's Northeast neighborhood and the Village of Lansing's Arrowwood medical office complex is served by public transit, major roads, schools, childcare, health care, recreation, and other amenities as well as by nearby retail and employment centers. Cornell has long identified its land there as desirable for workforce housing (and has been paying real properly taxes on it), yet a portion of it is shown imder the Reserve Areas, Natural/Open designation. As one of the few available sites for workforce housing in the Northeast, we think it important to re-examine it with you at your earliest convenience. • Where it is proposed the Natural/Open character district would encumber on-going uses as well as future development of Cornell facilities that support educational and recreational uses (among others), and significantly, which would otherwise be fully compatible with other priorities within the Town's draft Comprehensive Plan Update. If the zoning anticipated by the Natural/Open characteristics were assigned without further refinement to Cornell land, it would defeat the core Town principles of sustainable development by attempting to channel future Cornell growth into a pattern of sprawl in other areas and loss of future academic operations there. Among Ae key elements of our Campus Master Plan that would be jeopardized are protecting our outdoor teaching and research facilities; broadening housing options close to Core Campus; providing high quality recreation and athletics complexes; and affecting the desired transformation of East Hill Plaza into the East Hill Village concept of a dense mixed use community grounded in Smart Growth. . 6. Reserve Areas, Rural/Agriculture, Future Land Use Plan (Chapter 3): We also noticed the inclusion of Cornell "agricultural, equestrian, and animal husbandry research and education" in the Rural/Agriculture character district. • The criteria for the Rural/Agricultural Reserve District state that the district should be rural or agrarian in character where agriculture is desired and protected. This describes a Rural/Agriculture district that wiU remain static and seldom change. • This static description may work well for discrete parcels held by diverse non- institutional owners. However, we are concerned that it perpetuates a misconception that will be no different toward our "outdoor classrooms" and "outdoor labs" than the current LDR zoning is toward Cornell's indoor classrooms and labs. • Quoting from Appendix B - Existing Conditions, of the Town's draft plan update again, "lz]oning in the Town of Ithaca regards college and university campuses as a collection of discrete parcels, even though the campus Junctions as a single entity. While conventional zoning considers that uses in a particular district mil be static and seldom cltange, post-secondary institutions are dynamic, vibrant organizations, loith evolving missions and ever<]mnging needs for its buildings and properties." • There is very little, if any, difference between the manner in which we manage areas for agricultural, equestrian, and animal husbandry on one hand and that for indoor lab and classroom buildings on the other hand. Both are d3mamic and evolve for ever-changing needs. The assignment of our research, teaching, extension and service fields and bams to the Rural/ Agriculture Character District would be another mismatch. It would extend the same misapplication of a zoning label as the current LDR zoning does when applied to the Cornell campus, ~ a misapplication which this draft Plan Update laudably seeks to correct. As discussed above, both Reserve Areas (Natural/Open and Agricultural) are clearly intended for stasis by this draft plan update. With respect to some few current uses, that may be appropriate. The attempt to designate Comell lands for either Reserve Area is almost in every case at odds with Comell's dynamic usage and management of these areas to meet its evolving educational mission, needs and the capacity for future growth. We have attached an image of our master plan vision overlaid with the Town's future land use plan that illustrates the inconsistencies and gaps in the Institutional designation as well as the extent to which our capacity for future growth and development will be affected. We have also attached comments from some of our colleges and units explaining their use and management of the lands in question. They help explain concerns that may not be readily apparent, but which are critical to their educational needs and the University's future. This section would be significeintly improved with greater clarity and selectivity on criteria by which lands were designated for inclusion within this character district, and an expanded set of appropriate supporting uses that are consistent with the criteria. Many of the goals in the Natural Resources section are appropriate but the language in the goal concerning managed or sustainable tree harvest continues to be of concern to us, and dates from our conversations with Conservation Board of well over a year ago. 7. Neighborhood Centers, specifically East Hill Center (Chapter 3): The Campus Master Plan recognizes the importance of strengthening our home communities and incorporated valuable input during the planning process from the Town's planning staff. Planning Board and the citizens of the Town. This was very useful to us in developing the long-term vision for transforming East Hill Plaza and adjacent land into East Hill Village as a dense, mixed use, walkable neighborhood center with offices, housing and retail that addresses plaiming goals for Cornell, the Town and the County, including the limitation of sprawl. We appreciate that this important element is reflected in a new neighborhood center land use category and that it also includes the potential redevelopment of the University's Maplewood parcel. This is a positive step and will enable tilie addition of new housing and diversification of housing types to help meet affordability needs. • We note that the proposed densities for this land use category, while appropriate for the Maplewood parcel, will be not be sufficient at East Hill Village to meet the needs for a successful redevelopment, housing and potential transit enhancements that characterize a true mixed use neighborhood center. We are pleased to submit our comments in the spirit of strengthening and enhancing the Town's Comprehensive Plan Update and ensuring that as one of the Town's major institutions of higher education, we are able to contribute in a way that recognizes the beauty and livability of the Town of Ithaca as well as the unique nature and diverse needs of modem tmiversities. We hope to carry out our mission and continue as a valuable commtmity member and partner, thus truly supporting the economic and sustainable development goals of the Town of Ittiaca. We look forward to a relationship of continued collaboration in moving toward that future. I have asked Mina Amundsen, the University Planner, to call upon you and die Town's planning staff for a meeting and exchange of information and viewpoints, with this letter serving as the outline for discussion. In the meantime, thank you again for your attention and your consideration of these important matters of mutual concern. Sincerely, Kyuhfng cc: Minakshi M.^mundsen Gilbert Del^do Shirley K./Egan John C. Gutenberger Stephen P. Johnson Thomas P. LiVigne Susan Ritter Gary J. Stewart Dan Tasman SriViTt» \ \. r- 'it-?.S Cit / of itb^ V _ _1 I t M' I IV ^ ^i — \1 / ^_ tTown of Hhaea Comprehensive Plan UpdateCni.cur o:u'iea i Ltno Um CuisorieiStrpersI Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences September 14,2012 Kathryn J. Boor, Ph.D. The Ronald P. Lynch Dean 260 Roberts Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-5905 Telephone: 607.255.2241 Fax: 607.255.3803 E-mail: kib4@comell.edu www.cals.comell.edu Kyu Whang Vice President for Facilities Services 101 Humphreys Services Building Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Dear Kyu, The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) has reviewed the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Update Draft dated June 12, 2012. We are glad to see many areas of the campus in the Town of Ithaca categorized under Institutional Land use, including many of our highly valued and long-standing research plots and fields that have been in active academic use for about a century. We are, however, concerned about the exclusion of other areas that have the same use but are classified under agricultural and conservation land uses, as well as a seeming inconsistency in the recognition of academic use. Most of the comments below relate to the failure of the planned "Character Districts" to acknowledge Cornell's current uses, as well as future plans for the use of our lands, reflected in the 2008 Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca campus. This is further complicated by inconsistencies between the "Goals and Recommendations" and the description of the "Land Use Categories." These discrepancies may be due to a lack of understanding of the range of activities currently occurring on these parcels, and our comments seek to provide some clarification on the College's use of its buildings and lands for cariying out its academic mission. Specifically we have the following comments and concerns: 1) The land uses proposed in the Town's draft Comprehensive Plan do not fully reflect years of planning efforts by Cornell, which were carried out with extensive participation from the Town and the greater Ithaca communities. While we recognize that Cornell's Campus Master Plan is not a governing document for the Town, institutional planning efforts need to be recognized and incorporated in the Town's Plan. 2) Within the current draft of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, Cornell University agronomic field areas are randomly classified as land that is either institutional, agricultural, or conservation. Each of these outdoor laboratory spaces are managed through the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. These field areas provide proximal locations for conducting cutting-edge research; they serve as outdoor lab spaces for numerous horticultural classes, and; they are a resource shared through dedicated outreach, field days and open houses. It is important that these locations for Cornell University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and employer CALS Response to Town of Ithaca Plan September 14, 2012 Page 2 educational agronomic activity stay consistently classified as institutional. Each of these areas, from our East Ithaca Farm to our McGowan Farm, are sites that directly support Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences core mission to uncover, integrate, share, and apply knowledge with a public purpose. There is no intention to build significantly in these field areas; rather, they are highly valued as open areas serving a core institutional function. 3) CALS objects to the inclusion of areas of Cornell land beyond the Cornell natural areas in an expanded "Conservation District." As stated in the draft Town Comprehensive Plan a Conservation District would encompass lands immediately behind Mann Library, Fernow Hall and including Bruckner Hall. These areas aie directly adjacent to presently developed sites as well as proposed future development sites. 4) The Conservation District also includes the Cornell Plantations' Botanical Gardens and Newman Arboretum, present service areas, fueling stations, and the approved site for a new cell tower. The current and likely future use and management of these areas are not compatible with the goals and directions outlined in the Conservation District and greatly limit the teaching and research efforts for Cornell Plantations. All areas designated as conservation zones are "/o be protected from development in perpetinty. It includes land approximating or reverting to a natural state, environmentally sensitive areas, and land unsuitable for settlement or agriculture due to topography, hydrology, or soils condition^ We do not feel that this is an appropriate designation for the Botanical Gardens or for the Newman Arboretum, which is a horticultural display and study area. Further part of the Newman Arboretum is zoned for residential development which is highly unlikely given the topography as well as current and future plans for that part of the campus. 5) The criteria section language in the Conservation Category is vague, saying the protection should preclude "institutional uses," and that land that "approximates or is reverting to a natural state" within these zones should be protected from development. These areas are also significantly increased from the current designated conservation zone areas. While enhancing protection for these environmentally important landscapes is laudable for highly sensitive natural areas and necessary buffers for these areas, it could be interpreted to include many successional habitats or managed grasslands/shrublands that may otherwise be of low natural resource value (in contrast to a protected natural area), and by the nature of the land use being applied at the moment to that land, be considered "reverting to a natural state." This could encumber development of facilities to support educational and recreational uses (among others) within these areas, which may otherwise be fully compatible with other priorities within the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Further, it only notes supporting residential units (I per 15 acres) on a case by case basis, but does not list any other supporting uses that are appropriate (e.g. educational, recreational, etc.). CALS Response to Town of Ithaca Plan September 14, 2012 Page 3 6) Many of the goals in the Natural Resources section are appropriate but the language in the goal concerning tree harvest continues to be of concern to us, dating from our conversations with Conservation Board from well over a year ago. 7) The designation of land east of East Hill Plaza as "Conservation" does not recognize the present use of that area for athletics and other Cornell uses, including our farm services operation in support of our academic mission. We are concerned about ways in which this designation would tie the University's hands for lands south of Cascadilla Creek and would further render all present uses on that parcel non-conforming, negatively affecting our current uses and future implementation of campus development. This area is important in that it enables greater density on approved sites within the core Cornell campus by moving athletic practice fields to areas more appropriate to low densities. 8) While agriculture is described as an important economic activity in the report, the description of the "Agricultural District" would limit Cornell's mission to support agriculture through teaching, research and extension activities. Our educational efforts in this area are highly diverse, including fields and wooded areas. In many cases, these open lands have existed for over a hundred years, and are expected to continue in support of our educational mission for the long term. The agricultural uses on our teaching and research plots and fields are thus primarily educational and should be consistently included within the institutional land use category. The University does not support additional regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations beyond the NY State regulations. While CALS supports the Town of Ithaca's effort to update its Comprehensive Plan we believe greater effort needs to be made to incorporate current and future planned activities identified in the 2008 Cornell Master Plan, which is consistent with the College's planning efforts and balances well our development and open space needs. Sincerely, A P Kathryn J. Boor, Ph.D. The Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine Michael I. Kotlikoff, V.M.D., Ph.D. Austin O. Haoc\j Daut ofVctcrinan/ Medicine S2-()05Schiimian Mall lllinca, NY n.S53-6401 I. 607.253.3771 f. 607.253.3701 mik7@coriioll.eclu vv vvw.vel .Cornell .edu MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mr. Kyu Whang Vice President for Facilities Services Dr. Michael Kotlikoff Dean, College of Veterinary Medicine DATE:September 14,2012 SUBJECT:Draft Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Update Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Update dated June 12,2012. The College of Veterinary Medicine is supportive of the new Institutional Land Use category and potential zone for the main campus of Cornell University in the Town of Ithaca. We are also supportive of the broad goals of maintaining agricultural and conservation areas in the Town. However, we have some concerns regarding the designations on the Character District Land Use Category Map, especially within our main campus boundary. While several open areas used for teaching and research are included within the institutional zone category, others that have similar functions are excluded. The College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) buildings and lands are very diverse and are used to support the Research and Teaching mission of the college. We use our buildings and open lands for academic purposes. The open lands support the functions in the buildings and both are regulated by Local, State and Federal Animal Regulatory Agencies. Especially as CVM's buildings and lands are entirely within the Town of Ithaca, the exclusion of either or both from Institutional land use will pose significant challenges to meeting the College's mission, and by extension, the University's mission. Citriwll Uitivrisity is an .iffiiiiijIiyiNnit.Ht .tttil fnipInyiT The primary areas of concern are: 1. The Equine Research Park on Bluegrass Lane and the Equine Aniiex on Snyder Hill and Pine Tree Road are identified as Agricultural. Both of these areas currently have existing structures and pasture land that support CVM's teaching and research mission. Both the buildings and open land are used for academic functions and not agricultural uses. The proposed land use renders these existing areas and the uses on them non-conforming, limits their use for current academic functions and greatly constrains future development or enhancement of these areas. 2. The Hungerford Hill area is partially identified as Institutional and partially identified as Agricultural. Some of the area identified as Institutional does not include areas that have existing buildings or the water tower. Again, similar to the Equine Research Annex, both the buildings and the land are used for academic purposes and regulated, and cannot be seen as separate land uses. The College of Veterinary Medicine recommends that all CVM buildings and land be included under the Institutional Land Use category. The maintenance of open lands is in the academic interest of tlie College as they are integral to our mission and operations. These needs have been recognized in the 2008 Cornell Master Plan for the campus, whicli continues to be the guiding document for long term development of the main campus. We feel that both development and open spaces can exist within an institutional zone, in particular, for a large land grant institution like Cornell where the land is an essential component of the educational mission. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. xc: Minakshi Amundsen John Gutenberger Stephen Johnson Thomas LiVigne Cornell University Student and Academic Services Susan H. Murphy Vice President 311 Day Hall Ithaca, New York 14853-2801 t. 607.255.7595 f. 607.255.8400 e. shml @comell.edu September 18,2012 Minakshi M. Amundsen University Planner Cornell University 102 Humphreys Service Building Ithaca, NY 14853 Dear Mina, Upon review of the proposed Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, I would like offer the perspective of Student and Academic Services (SAS). We agree with the overall approach of designating "agricultural" and "conservation" based land use categories but have concems that some university parcels have been designated as such and the consistent approach to deem all university property as "institutional" was not taken. Two parcels in particular concern SAS: the parcel east of East Hill Plaza to Game Farm Road; and the parcel adjacent to the tennis center off Pine Tree Road. As shown on the "Future Land Use Map" in the draft plan, these two parcels have been designated as "conservation" and "agricultural" respectively. These parcels currently house SAS Athletic venues. The soccer complex is on Game Farm Road and includes a field house and four fields. The Pine Tree Road parcel contains the Women's softball complex. Should the Land Use Map become final, our current athletic operations would immediately be considered non-compliant. These fields are used for NCAA sanctioned sports as well as University Club sports. This would impact the current Athletic program significantly if upgrades and enhancements would no longer be possible due to land use regulations. With regard to future planning, the University Master Plan has determined that some current central campus athletic fields to be locations for growth opportunities for academic purposes. The Game Farm Road site has been slated as the future home for various displaced athletic venues. By designating the parcel as "conservation," no future building would be considered, therefore significantly impacting the University Master Plan. In conclusion, our recommendation would be to categorize the above mentioned parcels as "Institutional "so that SAS Athletics may continue as an integral program supporting our students. Cornell's athletic and recreation programs are an integral part of the college experience and future upgrades or expansion should not be compromised. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input. Sincerely, "3 Susan H. Murphy East Hill Plaza/East Hilt Village Summary East Hill Village presents the opportunity to transform over the long term a single-story auto oriented strip mall into an attractive walkable mixed-use neighborhood at the intersection of the Cornell campus with the community. An East Hill Village Conceptual Study, carried out to test the recommendations in the 2008 Cornell Master Plan, recasts East Hill Plaza's retail facilities to a mixed use retail/office/residential district, enabling Cornell employees as well as EHV office workers to live and work in close proximity. The amount of retail space is envisioned to stay roughly the same, but is choreographed around a central place - a Village Square - with residences, hotel rooms, offices and other uses around it that will serve existing neighbors and new residents and visitors. Key Design Elements: 1. Phasing - Solve the puzzle of keeping existing businesses open while replacements are built, consistent with creating a desirable long-term neighborhood framework 2. Place making - Marry the Pine Tree arrival corridor with a Village Square, to create a memorable entry to Cornell 3. Orchestrate Uses and Massing - Combine land uses and building massing within the Village envelope to maximize the synergy and attractiveness of the entire Village and its setting As East Hill Village takes shape, it will provide another option for Cornell families to live close to campus and a rich mix of amenities in a striking landscaped setting, reducing vehicular trips to increase walking, biking and taking transit/shuttles for more trips - all aspects of a more sustainable lifestyle. The desire for a more sustainable lifestyle is a trend we're seeing across the US where demand and pricing is buoyant for living and working environments with the aforementioned characteristics. Transforming East Hill Plaza The existing conditions will be dramatically transformed by East Hill Village: as noted by the following before » after descriptions: • Landmark Quality - Without a clear Sense of Place » Creates an iconic Village Square - a planted commons with a cafe/restaurant pavilion and outdoor seating zone on the east edge, will be a new landmark • Use - Several important services and uses, including market, stores and restaurants, hotel and offices, but few people live or work within walking distance » Add residences and workplaces within walking distance to services • Buildings - Generally 1 Story box type buildings (36 to 38' height limit) » Generally 3-5 Stories (40 to 60' height limit) in mixed-use core, generally 2-3 stories (40' height limit) in predominantly residential zone east of Summerhill • Paving - Extensive asphalt paving with minimal pedestrian network » fine-grained pattern of modest streets, with continuous tree lined sidewalks • Vegetation - Small fragments of planting and open spaces » Strong, clear pattern of street trees and system of connected open spaces • Utilities - Ad hoc pattern of utility lines solely serving existing facilities, with above ground power and telephone lines » robust utility network within streets with capacity to serve proposed neighborhood • Arrival Sequence - view of Burger King, gas station and empty corner, foreground power poles, parking and undistinguished low buildings in background » view of Village Square, landscaped wetland feature, and enhanced Pine Tree Road with street trees, storefronts and cohesive streetscape design. • Informal park like character of East Lawn Cemetery carried across Pine Tree to mark the north entrance to the Village; smooth out grading of existing road cut A Sustainable Neighborhood The envisioned long term development of East Hill Village is a major step in Cornell University's efforts to achieve carbon neutrality - a commitment stemming from the President's signing of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. The planning principles for the area were developed to support the generation of an exemplary model sustainable community. The foundation of the model is the creation of an attractive, walkable mixed-use neighborhood, close to the University's Core Campus and served by ample transit to connect it to the University and to other neighborhoods of greater Ithaca. The primary sustainability attributes imbedded in the Conceptual Master Plan include: • Redevelop Within Existing Footprint - The majority of the East Hill Village redevelopment is focused on areas that are previously developed, though underutilized. • Compact/Higher Density Development - The overall project density is greater than 15 units per acre and the village core is greater than 30 units per acre. This helps to conserve land and open space and promotes livability, transportation efficiency, and walkability. • Orientation of Street Grid/Blocks - The street grid is rotated so that typically no building side or sidewalk faces due north. This helps to achieve enhanced energy efficiency by creating the optimum conditions for the use of passive and active solar strategies. Solar orientation and size of the Village Square has also been carefully considered to maximize solar access especially in the cafe zone. • Walkable Streets/Small Block Size - The blocks are typically no more than 300' in any direction creating a street grid density of over 30 centerline miles/square mile. This provides appealing and comfortable pedestrian street environments in order to promote pedestrian activity, supporting the ability for people to walk more in their daily lives, reducing auto dependency. • Diversity of Uses - Residential units are included in this mixed-use developments such that a majority of them are within a 10 minute or half mile walk of at least four diverse uses such as retail, grocery, office, etc. • Proximity to Public Transportation - East Hill Village is located within a commimity with existing public transportation networks. The development will help to enhance ' ^ the viability of these networks and to reduce sprawl. This helps to conserve open space and reduce auto dependency; thus reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and the overall impact of the automobile on the local community. Reduced Parking Footprint - The planning will increase the pedestrian orientation of projects and to minimize the adverse environmental effects of surface parking. Structured parking will be placed to the side and/or back of blocks, leaving building frontages open and pedestrian oriented. Bicycle, car share and carpool spaces are anticipated throughout the community. Access to Surrounding Vicinity - Direct and safe connections, for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as drivers will be provided to local destinations outside of the East Hill Village neighborhood promoting greater community wide connectivity. Access to Public Spaces and Active Spaces - A variety of open spaces close to work and home will be integrated into the plan to encourage walking, physical activity and time spent outdoors. LEED-ND credits - Future development will address eligibility for LEED-ND Certification.