HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-02-15TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 15, 1994
FILED
TOWN OF
Date.
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, February 15, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Herbert
Finch, James Ainslie, Eva Hoffmann, Candace Cornell,
Stephen Smith, Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), George
Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Louise Raimondo (Planner
I), John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Jack & Amy Little, Randy Brown, Lewis Roscoe,
Robert R. Bland, Ellen Harrison, Scott Whitham.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:31
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.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 45 -2 -14.2, 42 +/- ACRES IN SIZE, IN SIX PARCELS RANGING
IN SIZE FROM 0.75 + /- ACRE TO 23.44 + /- ACRES, LOCATED BACKLOT OF
RIDGECREST, EAST KING, AND TROY ROADS, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15 AND
R -30. CITIZENS SAVING BANK, OWNER; JOHN E. AND AMY W. LITTLE,
APPLICANTS.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Sketch Plan Review in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:33 p.m.
Jack Little addressed the Board and stated that he and his
wife had an agreement with Citizen's Savings Bank to buy this
property with intentions to subdivide the property into six lots.
Mr. Little gave a brief description of his Sketch Plan Map provided
to the Planning Board Members, and stated that Parcel A, which is
the parcel that the Littles would build their own home on, is 23
1/2 acres with access in three places to Ridgecrest Road. Mr.
Little stated that Lots B and C located off Troy Road and would be
2.28 acres each. Mr. Little stated that Parcel D would be 4 acres.
Parcel E would be 9.2 acres and would have access off Ridgecrest
Road, which would have municipal water and sewer to it. Mr. Little
stated that the right of way for the overhead electrical
transmission lines would be on Parcel E. Mr. Little stated that
Parcel F would be 0.75 acres and would be conveyed to Mr. Buchanan,
who lives on East King Road, and had expressed interest in that
VA I
Planning Board 2 February 15, 1994
parcel. Mr. Little stated that the sketch plan was designed to
keep all of the wetlands on Parcel A. Mr. Little stated that there
was municipal water and sewer available to Parcels A and E, and
that Parcels B, C. and D, would require a well and septic systems.
(Sketch Plan Map attached hereto as Exhibit #1)
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Town Board had
received a petition to consider extending the water and sewer to
the Danby town line by some of the residents on Troy Road,
Chairperson Kenerson asked Mr. Little if he intended to sell
the lots. Mr. Little responded, yes.
There was
some discussion
among the Board Members regarding
availability
of
water and the
water pressure in that area. The
Board discussed
be required in
the conditions
that were placed on the Jones Farm
Subdivision
at
the January 5,
1993 Planning Board Meeting. The
Board discussed
Little
stated that he understood that the
Town of Ithaca
waiving the open space requirement.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she did not feel
comfortable waiving the Town park requirement. Ms. Cornell stated
that the Board could request an open space acquisition account for
those occasions when the Board wishes to waive the park
requirement.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Town does not have a
policy set up for cash in lieu of.
Board
Member
Candace Cornell
stated the she
wanted reserve the
option for
set aside
or money to
be required in
the future.
The
Board
discussed receiving money in lieu of
park and open
space set
aside
requirements, the undesirability of the land on the
Sketch Plan
for
a park for the Town, and setting up
an acquisition
fund.
the property in
easement on the
consider that.
perpetuity.
wetlands would
Mr. Little asked if
satisfy the Board,
Mr.
Little
stated that he understood that the
Town of Ithaca
did not have a
plan established for cash in lieu
of set aside
space.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked if there were any plans for
future subdivision on Parcel A. Mr. Little responded, no. Mr.
Smith stated that the Board should place a restriction to prevent
any future subdivision on Parcel A.
Mr.
Little
stated that
his intentions
were
to live
on the
property,
financial
build a home, and
decision to accept
he did not
a restriction
feel it would be
for no subdivision
a wise
of
the property in
easement on the
consider that.
perpetuity.
wetlands would
Mr. Little asked if
satisfy the Board,
a conservation
that he would
Planning Board 3 February 15, 1994
Amy Little addressed the Board and stated that there is very
little access to Parcel A, that there are wetlands, and that they
had no intentions of subdividing the property. Mr. Little stated
that they were considering a Christmas tree farm on that parcel in
order to insure the protection of the wetlands.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that if it is determined that
nothing is suitable for a park, the Planning Board could require,
as a condition of approval, that a payment be made to the Town (a
sum to be determined by the Town Board) which shall constitute a
trust fund to be used by the Town exclusively for a neighborhood
park.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that as a Planner,
he is very uncomfortable with the Town of Ithaca trying to impose
any fee in lieu of land on a property owner at this time, when the
Town does not have an updated park and open space plan in place and
the Town does not have any mechanism set up to collect funds.
There being
Chairperson
Kenerson stated that the Board had three
choices,
1)
waive the set
aside requirement, 2) insist on the six
acres, or
to
31 require money in lieu of the set aside toward
parkland
elsewhere.
The Littles have requested that the Planning Board consider a
waiver of the 10
percent parkland set aside for this
The Planning
Board decided that the park land set aside not be
waived,
but that
they would agree to cash in lieu of
that set
aside.
possible wetland areas,
and
3.
There being
John and Amy Little
no
further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone
were prepared
to
offer
Board on February 15, 1994, and
a motion.
MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Candace Cornell:
WHEREAS.
1.
John and Amy Little
have proposed a six lot Subdivision of
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 45 -2 -14.2, and presented a sketch
plan to the Planning
Board on February 15, 1994, and
2.
The Littles have requested that the Planning Board consider a
waiver of the 10
percent parkland set aside for this
subdivision because
of the large amount of open space
resulting from the large
lot size, and the avoidance of the
possible wetland areas,
and
3.
The Town Park and
Recreation Plan has no proposed park
facilities shown in
this area, and
4.
The Planning Board
has considered the argument that a
neighborhood park on
this parcel may not be practical, and
% t
Planning Board
E
February 15, 1994
5. Article 16, Section 277 of Town Law allows the Planning Board
to require as a condition of approval a payment to the Town of
a sum to be determined by the Town Board, which sum shall
constitute a trust fund for a neighborhood park, and
69 The Planning Board has indicated that when a preliminary plat
application is submitted without a Town park site, that a
payment in lieu of the parkland set aside will be required as
a condition of the preliminary approval, and it has been
suggested that such payment be calculated on a per acre basis
tied to the purchase price, and using the 66 acre size of the
original parcel known as "Jones Farm" as a basis to set the
required set aside as 6.6 acres;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board requests that Town Board consider what
amount such payment in Lieu of Parkland would be appropriate for
this subdivision, and that the Town Board advise the Planning Board
on the amount of this sum.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson
Kenerson
declared the matter of
Subdivision
Approval for the
proposed
Little's Farm duly closed at
8 :40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY DGEIS
COMMENTS. REVIEW OF DRAFT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE
PUBLIC, NYS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted duly opened at
8:42 p.m.
Planner I Louise Raimondo addressed the Board and stated that
a letter dated February 14, 1994, addressed to Lewis Roscoe of
Campus Planning, written by Peter Marks, Chair of the Natural Areas
Committee for Cornell University, was received in support of the
75 -foot setback requirement and given to each of the Planning Board
Members for their information (Attached hereto as Exhibit #2). Ms.
Raimondo stated that Town Attorney John Barney had made some
changes to the language of the Special Land Use District (SLUD) to
show the Planning Board's comments regarding the SLUD at the
previous Planning Board Meeting. (Attached hereto as Exhibit #3)
Ms. Raimondo stated that Planning Board Members that were able to
t
Planning Board 5 February 15, 1994
meet and Town staff met and had drafted additional responses to
public comments regarding the GEIS, made some alterations to the
comments drafted previously as per the Board's request, with
changes shown in italics. (Attached hereto as Exhibit #4)
Ellen Harrison addressed the Board and stated that she and
Bobbi Pekarsky had some continued concerns about water quality
issues. Ms. Harrison stated that the Stearns and Wheler Report and
the draft comments implied that because this property is only 3.2%
of the whole watershed of Cascadilla Creek that the water quality
changes and runoff changes that will occur because of development
on this site are not significant. Ms. Harrison stated that it was
not really fair to imagine that Cornell University could use up the
pollution capacity of the stream. Ms. Harrison stated that the
report uses the whole watershed rather than what the changes in
water quality from this parcel will be. Ms. Harrison stated that
there was an obvious desire on the part of Cornell University to
really do some progressive and creative stormwater management. Ms.
Harrison stated that one of the concerns was temperature, and they
could alleviate the problem of water warming somewhat by using
wetland type retentions instead of ponds. Ms. Harrison stated that
one of her other concerns was that in the northeast the flow of
streams and water courses is supported almost entirely by
infiltrating ground water. Ms. Harrison stated that the low flow
in the summer time is the most critical time for the animals living
in the stream that depend on the water supply. Ms. Harrison felt
that she did not feel that infiltration recognized as a purpose of
the stormwater management system in the GEIS. Mr. Harrison stated
that she wanted infiltration to be specifically mentioned in the
stormwater management plans. Ms. Harrison stated that any
hydrologist is aware of low flow as an issue which is why she was
distressed that the original DGEIS did not even mention it. Ms.
Harrison stated that in the Stearns and Wheler report there is a
recognition that low flow is often disrupted by impervious
surfaces, etc., but there was no attempt to look at that and
quantify it.
Planner I
Louise Raimondo
stated that the area had been
chiefly
used for
agriculture for
a long time, that there are a lot
of tile
underground
drains. Ms.
Raimondo stated that infiltration
in this
area, as
it exists now, is
not great. Ms. Raimondo stated
that,
in
general,
the
soils
of
the
area are very slow
permeability.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the infiltration
factor in this particular site was probably considered briefly as
not being a factor, just from the physical characteristics. Mr.
Walker stated that looking at this site as a hydrologist and
considering the topography of the area, the nature of the railroad
track, and the ditch that follows along the northeast side of this
site, which diverts almost all surface flows and most of the
subsurface flows, he felt that Cornell University did an adequate
.
Planning Board
job in identifying
here. Mr. Walker
localized on -site
0
February 15, 1994
that there is not a major groundwater recharge
stated that Cornell University was looking at
detention instead of centralized detention.
Planner I Louise Raimondo asked Robert Bland if the wet
retention structures that Cornell University intends to construct
in Precinct 7, would have any kind of groundwater recharge element
to them, and are they intended to serve an infiltration purpose as
well as a detention purpose.
Robert Bland responded that Cornell University is looking at
a combination of a pond and an inundated wetland -type area. Mr.
Bland stated that he felt that the idea was to build a structure
that was an analog or approximates the way the watershed looked
pre - development. Mr. Bland stated that the intent of ponds and
stormwater control is to get back to natural ground cover. Mr.
Bland stated that when the Town of Ithaca reviews the designs for
the retention areas, they should review recharge as one of the
objectives of the design.
Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that the Board could
incorporate a statement such as, the design of these
retention /detention systems shall approximate natural conditions or
shall be designed to minimize impact on the Creek including low
flow, into the Findings for the GEIS.
Board Member Candace Cornell
asked Mr.
Bland if
there would be
a class monitoring the stream, as
offered
by Bobbi
Pekarksy.
Robert Bland responded yes, and that there was a firm
commitment from Ms. Pekarsky, who is a professor, for the Spring of
1995.
Lewis Roscoe, representative for Cornell University, addressed
the Board and stated that any plans regarding stormwater management
were based on conceptual intent to try to take care of runoff.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he thought that the
Board should address the issues of gross square footage and set
backs.
The Board discussed the method of gross square footage in
regard to traffic control in the study area. The Board also
discussed how to set the thresholds for mitigation measures.
MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Candace Cornell:
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board accept in substance the
modifications to the draft comments in response to the Public
Comment with regard to the Cornell University Generic Environmental
Impact Statement. (Attached hereto)
Planning Board
vote.
7
February 15, 1994
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Finch, Cornell, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion of the Cornell
University Generic Environmental Impact Statement duly closed at
10:10 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Kenerson stated that there was no other business
to come before the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the February 15,
1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
Drafted 4/8/94.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae ays, Recording Secretary
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
_2v=, µNY;244T1 o,If [c.o.) T 0
IV w O F
•Isr.j, —o, • N Boll, yy I 1 G
( lii�t °'•v�'.. bj w y,' _ . yol•T r°rAL 4LON c � Y t:
21.0 0 _ reNO� e
y
TOwu d —
o� w � 0 tTtlgCq �
ef
it 0
W
eeea
e.p�
N Ci
�. F.,.
L
m
En
t
�feilt[
D�
lee
f 1 �
. ' m
lee
0' o
0
o
• • 't b�'r
1 7b Ila 0
I :
/3 to
13 So
�A
O�
/too
er•_7
>
ti
It
aH
o.
N
N�• P
1
12110
1
` bb
\ P 79
1
a
,
be
\
a
Totem �.-
i
1 ` J
Or �\
�,.f1
►.
\ t u
o ci'
VC r•'
2 ` \
0
127o
a
/zyO N A q \\\\\
w 0
a
M
CAS
M"8
a
i`.
Of
0
dd L
]�
j 1.4
�A P
Dn SIN Ra
or
Peel
9 �v��Zt•
i N
= OrU
> Vo >09
" v�ItUP
le
{ fOtF"
N„�
A
yap
$��np
u1i1
9
i
r
0
M
1.
Gele'll
i
\// ��,py
to
\ OGf� Gr
"''�\
mramm Tattle 57714A \
p 740
. P.
t�.
•y 90 4f
p
CM
6
i 4 /5�f
yN Il
'\
P
"
s0, /
.
moo
� •k.LPC
4
s
3
" 7 \
let
Ji • I Nom"
let
Qom\ Fx F
v� �� W ��
3 \pc
I r N 4l
o \V
I I
�\eL 5 70t aca ectcl
A Ile. -- t� 0 4 -to 1'cuoow
EAST
1 1 l
^ I
P P
�yt.
Sol
a�
V \ ,
A
f� !
f � j
fG �•
N�p,ei, L
A
f 4 Topl •
i • n iC� li
A III�n , oil E (7
tjf \i� U
t -�
1
IRj e
�lf � I3
2 11
` HIM I >o
l I
r I
• ��\iGl.l' � �i4' �•
�\ N y,� f0'iN 1Gf.l'TOTJ13. w
Y, \t f 11'. • ' 0'70 .L /
��(• �� T 1•fo ��', 3`•0
e w Lf
e�
1
le"ll"
G�
I
a
I
I
i
N
.� i r
P
Ii
Not 137.0
1'l r o
I � r, { Y � po
1 9 .i E
r
4 i
1 . �
= L
s,e.l
•• •Sa� fG�1 TolkL
a"• f iT If W ,• awl
L f ytt. y c•aG• •'� "
P \ �+ ' '' OT•.N E lif.� TOTP•L
o �0 � . r•w t �,
n' \ •e•• ' •N• G i
N ^w1•
m °y r
r m is s ~• fV r
v N A Imo{ ~
\ 90 gH
j fee. [ 1 N.
t� Ni i fTr ' ! A l
1. It f,
b �ppn
NG
ROAD
�o 0
.w
\ u`
;3It
0
L\
L
m
n
0
0
2
I
:14: Cornell University
Division of Biological Sciences
u�
Section of Ecology and Systematics
N Corson Hall
Ithaca, New York 14853 -2701 February 14, 1994
Lewis Roscoe
Campus Planning
102 Humphreys Service Bldg.
CAMPUS
Dear Lew,
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board DGEIS Committee has asked the Natural
Areas Committee for its advice regarding the width of the buffer zone for natural areas
within Precinct 7. The language given to us for comment is as follows:
"A buffer of 75' from the established line demarcating the boundary of
the natural areas shall be established to protect the natural area from the
effects of urbanization and to provide sufficient groundwater infiltration
for the vegetation in the natural areas. Disturbance or construction
within this buffer zone is limited to compatible facilities for passive
recreation and enjoyment of the natural areas such as paths or walkways
(no greater than 6 in width), observation areas, interpretive signage,
gazebos, and landscaping. Existing uses within this 75' buffer zone will
be grandfathered."
A buffer between the natural area and the built area is important to protect the
• Cascadilla natural area. In the case of Precinct 7, when the detailed preliminary planning
provided by the GEIS process permits the opportunity, we feel Cornell should apply a
different standard from that used on the central campus. For the crowded main campus,
the Natural Areas Committee has supported a natural area buffer of at least 30 feet from
the dripline of the vegetation. Such a buffer is designed to permit survival of the
vegetation on the edge of natural areas adjacent to the densely built campus. A different
standard makes sense in the undeveloped Precinct 7, and we think the Town's proposal of
75' is reasonable.
We believe good landscape planning for the orchard precinct should provide
significant open space. Although the primary purpose of the buffer space is to protect the
natural area from incompatible adjacent uses, we envision many functions that could occur
in the buffer, including landscaping, pedestrian trails, physical and visual access to the
natural area, and possibly picnic tables where people could enjoy work or study breaks.
Other compatible activities could be imagined. The 75' setback for construction proposed
in the language above seems a minimum distance to provide a buffer for the natural area
and to create a pleasant open space.
Therefore, at its February 10, 1994 meeting, the Cornell Plantations' Natural Areas
Committee endorsed the concept of a 75' buffer adjacent to the natural areas in Precinct 7.
Sincerely,
Peter Marks
Chair, Natural Areas Committee
PLM/sa
cc: Louise Raimondo, Planner, Town of Ithaca Planning Department
a) \sly+ vy.� N--�q
r
JOHN C. BARNEY
PETER G. GROSSMAN
NELSON E. ROTH
DAVID A. Dueow
RANDALL B. MARCUS
HUGH C. KENT
MARY K. FLECK
FINAL Dr��on�
BARNEY, GROSSMAN, ROTH & DUBOW FEB 8 W4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
315 NORTH TIOGA STREET iG'NN of
P.O. BOX 6556 PLANwtlG, ZONiK EWSZE
ITHACA, NEW YORK t4851-6S56
Ms. Louise Raimondo
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Louise:
(607) 273 -6841
February 4, 1994
FACSIMILE
(607) 272-8806
(NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS)
Following up on the Planning Board's discussion of the Cornell SLUD at the last Planning
Board meeting I have attempted to draft some language which will hopefully accomplish what
the intent of the Board might be. Enclosed, accordingly, is a revised proposed Special Land Use
District. The only change between this and the August 11, 1993 version is in paragraph (m) of
Section 6, starting on page 6. We have added to that area relating to Natural Area protection
special findings that would be required of the Board before a Special Approval could be granted.
In essence building within the Natural Areas would be limited to two circumstances:
1. Where a structure is intended to be an integral part of the Natural Area such as a trail,
observation deck, bench, or similar item or
2. Is a necessary addition to a building that already exists within the area. As you know
if we use a 75 foot buffer there are buildings near McGowan Woods that would fall within the
buffer area. While this was not fully discussed at the Planning Board meeting it was not clear
to me that the Planning Board wished to prevent Cornell from ever adding on to those buildings
(e.g., putting a loading dock on the rear of the building) or something of that nature that was
necessary to the optimum use of the building. Obviously if the Board does not want this
language it can be stricken.
I have also provided that in any event the proposed structure would be limited to a
structure that is the least intrusive to the environment of the Natural Area.
Perhaps with the next Board packet the revised SLUD can be submitted to the Board or
at least the revised pages.
Obviously I would be happy to hear your comments.
Exhibit #3
2/15/94 Minutes
February 4, 1994
Page 2
With best regards.
JCB:bc
Enc.
cc: Honorable John Whitcomb
Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
Mr. Robert Kenerson
Town Planning Board Chair
Mr. Dan Walker
Town Engineer
Mrs. Shirley Egan
Exhibit #3
2/15/94 Minutes
Very truly yours,
•
0
•
.
g Z�
o
specland.11, wpSh Allacallaw February 4, 1994 4:S2pm
All Other 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. 68 dBa
7 p.m. - 7 a.m. 58 dBa
For any source of sound which emits a pure tone, a discrete tone or impulsive sound, the
maximum sound limits set forth above shall be reduced by 5 dBa.
(f) Vibration: No activity shall cause or create a discernible steady state or impact
vibration at or beyond the boundary of the site.
(g) Atmospheric Emissions: There shall be no emission of dust, dirt, smoke, fly ash, or
noxious gases which could cause damage to the health of persons, animals, or plant life.
(h) Odor: There shall be no emission of any offensive odor discernible at the boundary
of the site. This standard is not intended to restrict customary agricultural practices.
(i) Glare and Heat: No glare or heat shall be produced that is perceptible beyond the
boundaries of the site. Exterior illumination shall be shaded and directed to prevent glare
or traffic hazard on surrounding properties and streets.
(j) Radioactivity and Electromagnetic Interference: No activities shall be permitted
which emit dangerous radioactivity. No activities shall be permitted which produce any
electromagnetic disturbance adversely affecting the operation of any equipment outside
the boundary of the site.
(k) Fire and Explosion Hazards: All activities involving, and all storage of inflammable
and explosive materials, shall be provided with adequate safety devices against the hazard
of fire and explosion and with adequate fire- fighting and fire suppression equipment and
devices standard in the industry and as may be required by any applicable codes, laws,
or regulations. All burning of such waste materials in open fires is prohibited.
(1) Vermin: There shall be no storage of material, either indoors or out, in such a
manner that it facilitates the breeding of vermin or endangers public health or the
environment in any way.
(m) Natural Areas Protection: No structure shall be built within a Natural Area (as
ho n on the attached map [Cascadilla Stream Corridor, McGowan Woods]), or within
75 feet of a Natural Area without first obtaining the Special Approval of the Planning
Board. In addition to the other criteria governing granting of Special Approvals, the
Planning Board shall not grant Special Approval for such a structure unless the Board
Inds t e propose s ivcture and its proposed to ation
6
Exhibit #3
2/15/94 Minutes
specland.11, wp5lithllocallaw February 4, 1994 4:52pm
i
(i) is related to, can be made an integral part of, and enhances the use and
enjoyment of, the Natural Area (such as a trail, bench, or ob.5ervation platform),
or
(ii) is a necessary addition to a structure that had already been constructed within
the Natural Area or the 75 foot buffer at the effective date of the creation of this
Special Land Use District; and in either event
(iii) accomplishes its purpose in the least intrusive manner to the environment of
the Natural Area.
60 Site Plan Approval: A site plan for a proposed use must be submitted and approved
by the Planning Board before a building permit may be issued, in conformance with site plan
requirements set forth at Section 46 -A. Unless specifically requested by the Planning Board,
property lines and adjacent public streets need not be shown on the site plan submitted if in
excess of 300 feet distant from the proposed site, but shall be shown on a location map. Further,
subparagraph 4 of Section 46 -A shall be modified as to site plan approvals previously granted
to structures in the special land use district, or to structures not required to have had a site plan
approval at the time of original construction, to provide that no approval of the modified site plan
by the Planning Board shall be required if the modification involves, 10
(a) Construction of a new building or structure with a footprint, of 2000 square feet or
less; or alteration of an existing structure involving the addition or modification of less
than (i) 10,000 square feet or (ii) 10% of the enclosed space of any structure of greater
than 20,000 square feet of enclosed space, whether on one or more stories, whichever is
less; and
(b) construction or relocation of fewer than 20 parking spacers provided there is no net
reduction in parking spaces; and
(c) any maintenance or repairs not materially affecting the appearance of the site, or
construction, repairs, alterations, or renovations materially affecting the exterior of a
building or the site where exterior work is anticipated to cost less than $100,000 (1993
price, subject to Cost of Living Index adjustment); and
(d) does not alter proposed traffic flows and access; and
(e) does not directly violate any express conditions imposed by the Planning Board in
granting prior site plan approval.
Exhibit #3 7
2/15/94 Minutes
. a
0 �
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721
U
r.
u
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747
FAX (607) 273 -1704
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Louise Raimondo, Planner 1
DATE: February 10, 1994
RE: CU FGEIS
PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783
Candace Cornell and Steve Smith were able to meet with Planning and Engineering
staff to draft the remainder of responses to the public comments received for the DGEIS.
These meetings were very productive, and I have enclosed draft responses for the
comments received from the NYS Dept. of Transportation and the general public (Ellen
Harrison, Barbara Peckarsky, and Bruce and Doug Brittain). Please read these over for
Tuesday's meeting and let us know at the meeting what changes or additions you feel are
appropriate.
The draft responses discussed at the Planning Board meeting on February 2, 1994
have been revised to reflect the Board's comments. Revised responses are shown in
italics.
Attachment
C:\CUGEIS\PB.MEM
cc: Dan Walker
George Frantz
John Barney
Ellen Harrison
Lew Roscoe
Exhibit,---441 )
2/15/94 Minutes .a
r]
v
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
TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK
LEAD AGENCY: TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 1994
11
0
•
0
DRAFT
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Robert Kenerson, Chair
Involved Agencies: Town of Ithaca Town Board (The Town Board must approve the
proposed Special Land Use District)
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
John Whitcomb, Town Supervisor
The New York State
approve any changes
GEIS)
333 East Washington
Syracuse, New York
Harry Carlson, Regio
Department of Transportation (The DOT must
to the state highway system as proposed in the
S treet
13202
nal Director of Transportation
Prepared By: Town of Ithaca Staff and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board:
Louise Raimondo, Planner 1
George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner
Daniel Walker, Town Engineer
John Barney, Town Attorney
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Robert L. Kenerson (Chair)
Stephen D. Smith (Vice- Chair)
James S. Ainslie
Candace E. Cornell
C. Herbert Finch
Eva B. Hoffman
Virginia C. Langhans
In conjunction with: Cornell University
Lew Roscoe, Director, Campus Planning
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary/Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
I. Introduction
IL Description of Action
III. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD OCTOBER 19, 1993 AND NOVEMBER 16, 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
C. Bruce and Doug Brittain
VI. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES, WITH ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
DISTRIBUTION LIST
L�
3 0
DRAFT
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 Hearing Held October 19, 1993
Text of Written Comments from the Public
Preliminary Responses to Public Comments, Cornell University, Campus Planning,
December 14, 19930
Response to Water Quality Issues Cascadilla Creek, DGEIS, January 1994, Stearns and
Wheler, Cazenovia, New York.
Cornell University Campus Plan, 1990.
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 central 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 i:n 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
Comell'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 proposed rezoning might have significant adverse environmental impacts,
and therefore 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
5
•
DRAFT
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)
Add all or most of the following of Lew Roscoe's draft preliminary responses to public
comment on the DGEIS (12/14/93 letter) ?:
o The amount of Cornell University growth is unpredictable. The University
does not wish to become physically grander, nor sprawl over the land. But the need for
unspecified increased building space is probable, and the University has undertaken much
planning to see how to best utilize its space and land. To make the core campus efficient for
walking, there should be some expansion to the perimeter of some less centrally necessary
facilities and parking. The only logical place for most of this is to the SE, to Precinct 7. The
amount of increased space need is unknown and the DGEIS has identified a maximum level
of development that seems reasonable for a variety of reasons - 4 million GSF although the
number could be much less. However, the physical planning limits and mitigations have to
be based on some imagined maximum, and that is the 4 million GSF that is in the document.
The FAR and open space proportions are based on those of an attractive place on the core
campus (the Arts Quad) and are intended to assure the Town that this maximum level is a
reasonable one. The amount of growth to predict is debatable, constrained by administrative
intent and economy no matter what historic trends may suggest. The maximum levels of
development are not necessarily desired or expected, but amount to a commitment to not
exceed what the University feels is a realistic maximum density and use of this land.
The University has grown at a rate between one and three per cent over its existence. But the
rate of future development is not the basis of the GEIS and would not change its outcome.
Land use and density there are not based on projections of University growth, but upon the
quality and capacity of Precinct 7. There is a stated maximum for future development, with
mitigations at thresholds of development. While there is no realistic expectation the
University could grow by 4 million GSF in ten years, perhaps it could in 30 to 50 years, with
much of that in this Precinct. But whatever the rate or amount, that development is limited
by the conditions and characteristics of the GEIS study area.
Growth and location: Much University growth will require a relatively close connection to
the main campus. To keep student walking time between classes down, the University has
concluded that teaching facilities will be kept near central campus, but some faculty and some
students and staff will need to move back and forth easily from one place to another.
Precinct 7 is an extension of the campus, not a remote branch which would require extensive
9
UKAFT
traffic. The University wants to provide an attractive and pleasing environment that people
will enjoy using, but cannot commit to permanent land uses or space: assignment by any
department. The Orchard, pleasant as it is for the public, is a University teaching and
research activity and subject to those needs and priorities, as determined by the University for
its programs and mission.
e Some of this document, such as traffic data and water quality characteristics,
has, necessarily, been measured at specific points in time. The data. collected can not
represent the full picture and may be out of date by the completion of the GEIS. In these
cases it will be necessary to measure specific impacts of proposed projects against the base
data, and to update the base data periodically. It will be in the interest of the Town and
University to look at some of this data periodically to see how it is changing, and keep an up-
to -date official record of that.
e The DGEIS is not intended to replace future Town reviews or
investigation of project impacts; rather, the DGEIS provides a baseline of data, which, if
necessary, can be augmented for specific project proposals through die EAF and
supplementary project reviews (see pg vii of DGEIS Vol D. Thus, such data as traffic and
water quality may be subject to additional analysis at the time of specific project proposals.
III. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS HELD OCTOBER 19, 1993 AND NOVEMBER 16, 1993
I. Public Comments Received at the October 19, 1993 Public Hearing
A. Bruce Brittain
10 Traffic should be considered as a performance standard for the SLUD
20 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)
B. Ellen Harrison
1.
Preservation
of Route
366 viewshed to Mount Pleasant.
2.
Request for
drawings
of possible layout scenarios
2. Public Comments Received at the November 16, 1993 Public Hearing
No members of the public gave comments at this second public hearing.
7 0
DRAFT
IV. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES AIND
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COUNCILS
The Planning Board has attempted to fully address all public comments received.
Because some of the comments received were lengthy, they have summarized for the sake of
brevity. The full text of all public comments received is included as Appendix _. In some
cases similar comments were raised by different agencies and/or individuals. Therefore,
responses to some comments may contain references to responses found elsewhere in the
FGEIS.
A. Tompkins County Department of Planning:
1. Comment: What mechanism exists for making sure that impacts identified in the
DGEIS (eg. stormwater management 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 tune, 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 listed in the SLUD (f through m in
particular) are very general and vague. More detailed, objective
standards do exist for items such as odor, dust, vibration, etc., and we
recommend that, where possible, more finite, objective standards be
used to determine conformance.
Response: Some of the performance standards listed in the draft SLUD are indeed
very general, and the Planning Board has evaluated the possibility of including more specific
and detailed standards. The standards for density, height, ground coverage, setback from a
0 8
EMU=
public road, and noise are quite specific. The 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. These more general standards are adequate, and allow some is
degree of flexibility for Cornell in formulating its development plans for the Precinct, while
still being protective of the environment. The Town can require that more specific standards
be met as appropriate for each proposal that Cornell proposes for developrr,ent of Precinct 7
during the site plan review process.
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."
Response: The permissible noise levels as listed in the draft SLUM should
adequately protect adjacent land uses from disturbance by noise. The most sensitive areas to
noise pollution are residential and natural areas, and the day and night time levels as
proposed are appropriate for these areas. A 75 foot buffer zone from the natural areas (see
comment C.I. below) will further protect these areas from adjacent Land uses. At present,
there are no residential areas in or immediately adjacent to the area proposed for rezoning.
The Town's site plan review process will allow the Town' to evaluate the need for additional
setbacks in the event that a potentially noisy use is proposed for location neat to a sensitive
area.
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 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 million GSF will include all space
including underground areas. The Town will require that basement areas to be included in
GSF calculations.
5. 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
9
r1
U
DRAFT
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 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. The seven wet retention basins proposed by
Cornell for stormwater management can serve many of the same functions as created
wetlands, and may even meet the federal definition of a wetland within a few years of their
creation.
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
10
UKAtl
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 is
developed area when there is an obvious user group. Cornell has proposed bicycle and
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 then; 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 repidle 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 of 75 feet (see
comments 8.2, below) will insure that these natural areas are adequately protected, along •
with their resident fauna.
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: Please see the response given under Section C., comment 1 below.
11
DAFT
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 U -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 75 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 Wheler, Environmental Engineers and Scientists (Appendix to
study the issue. Water quality impacts are also discussed in depth in Section V. of this
document in response to comments made by Ellen Harrison and Barbara Peckarsky,
4. Comment: To what extent will all potential impacts of all the proposed (not -yet-
identified) developments be 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
12
DRAFT
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 continent by the Town, the
Town's consultant, Cornell University, and Cornell's consultants. The DGEI;S 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 "11 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. •
5. 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 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. (Whatil'ollowed was
deleted).
CO 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
13
•
0
DRAFT
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. This issue of an
adequate buffer zone for natural areas has been the subject of much discussion and debate.
The Town staff and Planning Board have searched the literature and queried a number of
state officials with regard to adequate setback parameters. New York State has one
equivalent standard, a 100 foot setback from state designated wetlands. When questioned on
how this standard was established, it was found that the decision was not made by staff
trained in conservation practices, but rather was a political compromise. Originally the
setback from wetlands was proposed as 200 feet, which the legislature deemed too large a
buffer area. A buffer zone of 100 feet was recently proposed to the Planning Board and
Cornell, arrived out by consideration of wildlife, aesthetic concerns assumed for users of East
Ithaca Recreationway located alongside Cascadilla Creek, and water quality preservation
concerns. The Planning Board, after much debate, and input from Campus Planning staff,
has agreed upon a 75 foot buffer zone from the established line demarcating the boundary of
the natural 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 . This buffer zone shall be
established to protect the natural areas from the effects of urbanization and to provide
sufficient groundwater infiltration for the vegetation in the natural areas and protection of the
water quality in the Creek. Disturbance or construction within this buffer zone is limited to
compatible facilities for passive recreation and enjoyment of the natural areas such as paths
or walkways (no greater that 6 feet in width), observation areas, interpretive signage,
gazebos, and landscaping. Eristing uses within this 75 foot buffer =one will be grandfathered.
2 Comment: Adequacy of traffic count information in DGEIS; 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: The traffic count data provided in the DGEIS is considered adequate for
14
the purpose of identifying the potential future traffic related impacts of the proposed
development of Precinct 7. Additional review of traffic and the need for traffic related
mitigating measures identified in the DGEIS will occur as part of the site plan review process
for individual projects in the area as provided by the proposed Special Land Use District.
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: Please see Section VI.A., Comment 5 above.
D, New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT).
1. Comment: Correction of the D /GEIS to include them as an involved agency
Response: The New York State
Involved Agency. The NYS Department o
to be preparing its own Findings Statement
development in Precinct 7, as provided for
Act.
Department of Transportation is now listed as an
f Transportation as an Involved A;;ency is expected
with regard to traffic impacts of the proposed
under the State Environmental Quality Review
2. Comment: Staging of highway improvements to be consistent with development,
rather than after problems arise
Response: The Town concurs with the above comment. Road improvements to
NYS Route 366, as well as to local roads impacted by the development proposed in the
DGEIS can and should be programmed as development of the area proceeds.
The matter of timing for transportation related mitigations should be discussed with
the NYS Department of Transportation at the time a particular project is proposed. The
mitigations could be done at the time projects are initiated.
3. Comment: Five lanes on NYS Route 366 instead of 4 is recommended
15 0
DRAFT
4. Comment: Clarification on intersection improvements in the NYS Route 366 area
0 needed
Response: The above two concerns are noted. The Final GEIS does not make any
findings regarding the ultimate width or number of lanes for NYS Route 366. The ultimate
width and number of lanes, and the configuration of other improvements to the road,
including intersection improvements, should be determined at the time the need for
improvements has been identified.
As state above, it is expected that the NYS Department of Transportation as an
Involved Agency will be making its own Findings with regard to traffic impacts of the
proposed development in Precinct 7, and that the above issue will be addressed at that time.
5. Comment: Figure 2A in the Executive Summary would be more informative if it
contained trip generation data
Response: The Town concurs with the above comment.
6. Comment: NYS Department of Transportation policy requires that developers pay
for road improvements
Response: The Department of Transportation is considered an Involved Agency
under SEQRA. This F /GEIS assumes that the Department will develop its own Findings
Statement and will duly exercise the authority delegated to it under the relevant State laws.
7. Comment: NYS Department of Transportation would agree to a phased mitigation
plan between Cornell, the Town of Ithaca, and the Department of
Transportation.
Response: The magnitude of the proposed development in Precinct 7, and the fact
that the local road network is a mix of University, Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, and State owned roads, provides both a challenge and an opportunity for cooperation
in the coming decades between all par-ties involved. Only through such a partnership will the
necessary improvements be accomplished and the costs shared in an equitable manner. The
framework for such cooperative approach to mitigating traffic impacts in the area should be
the newly formed Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Council, of which all parties are
members.
0 16
V. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC I*
A. Ellen Harrison
1. Comment: It seems to me that it is quite a challenge to consider eui EIS for a
development program that might range from 25►6,000 gross Square Feet
(GSF) to 13.5 times that -- 4 million GSF. It may seem obvious, but I
believe that to be adequate, the impact assessment must assume full
build - "worst case" from an environmental point of view.
Response: A generic environmental impact statement is intended to be just that,
generic. It is an attempt to identify and to quantify where possible all environmental impacts
of development in cases where the full nature of that development is unknown. In the case of
this request by Cornell University for rezoning Precinct 7, the University has provided us with
a range of potential development from which to make judgements on potential impacts. This
range has a low estimate of growth, which is an improbable scenario based upon Cornell's
growth projections, and a high estimate (4 million GSF), which is based upon an imagined
maximum of growth. This maximum would allow the University to reasonably development
Precinct 7 with floor area ration (FAR) and open space limits set, based upon a known
standard on the central campus, the Arts Quad, for which there is general agreement on the
desirability of its design and open space qualities. Cornell has adequately addressed the
"worst case" scenario, assigning the 4 million GSF as its upper limit, and addressing impacts
at this level as well as lower levels of development.
2. Comment: Much of the DGEIS is really quite a general discussion and not specific
enough to really consider the impacts. The level of detail in the DGEIS
is insufficient. Perhaps some threshold could be developed so that
future development that was not "major' could proceed with the use of
and EAF, but that "major" developments could trigger a separate EIS.
Response: A generic environmental impact statement cannot ;project every potential
impact, since no specific development proposal is under consideration at the time the impact
statement is written. It is intended to address overall projected impacts. The Town will have
the opportunity to review each development proposal during the site plan review process, and
decide whether the environmental impacts of the proposed action have been adequately
addressed. Cornell and the Town have agreed that all development projects within Precinct 7
will require completion of a full environmental assessment form (long EAF). The GEIS has
addressed the significant environmental impacts associated with development of Precinct 7
within the constraints of a GEIS, and proposed mitigating measures to address these impacts.
The site plan review process will include a review of these proposed mitigating measures as
17 0
:7
DRAFT
they relate to the project under review. If the environmental impacts of a proposal are found
to be inadequately addressed in the GEIS, the Town may require that a supplemental
environmental impact statement be completed to address these impacts.
3. Comment: It would be very helpful for
GSF and FAR, to be able to
show examples of what the
showing several alternatives
needed for the reader to mal
parking is about 5 times the
those of us not familiar with interpreting
see some graphic representation which
maximum build might look like. A map
with associated parking (4385 cars) is
:e sense of the proposal. This much
size of the A or B lots presently at Cornell.
Response: The Cornell Campus Planning Office has supplied the Town with a map
showing FAR data for the central campus (untitled, Fall 1993; incorporate by reference or
include). This gives additional information on densities of the existing campus, and what we
might reasonably expect to see in Precinct 7. Cornell published a Campus Plan in 1990
which shows one possible development scenario for Precinct 7 (incorporate by reference).
This document helped to set off the chain of events which triggered the Town's request for a
GEIS. Further speculation on possible development scenarios for Precinct 7 at this point in
the rezoning process would only serve to delay the approval process without providing
additional meaningful data. Cornell is uncertain of its development plans for the Precinct.
They have examined overall impacts of developing this portion of the campus, and the Town
will examine each proposal carefully, based upon the information compiled to date.
4. Comment: The consideration of Precinct 7 in conjunction with the adjacent
Precincts 8 and 9 is valuable, but it is also confusing. It seems from
the DGEIS that only minimal development is proposed for Precincts 8
and 9, As submitted, however, there is no commitment to this low level
of development and so we must be sure that we are not basing the
overall conclusions about impacts on this premise.
Response: For Precincts 8 and 9, the development amounts are only best guesses
and not commitments on the pan of the University. But since no SLUD or rezoning is
requested for this area, any development by Cornell would go through all the same processes
as it does at present, and there is no implied commitment to change. The GEIS is meant to
address a development program for Precinct 7, and only shows Precincts 8 and 9 for
background context, which was included as such at the request of the Town.
5, Comment: How does the FGEIS acceptance by the Planning Board relate to the
V
Town Board's approval of the SLUD?
Response: Cornell University filed an application for rezoning the 271 acres of
Precinct 7 from residential (R -30) to a Special Land Use District on March 6, 1991. The
Town Board referred the proposed rezoning to the Planning Board for a recommendation. As
the lead agency, the Town Planning Board made a positive declaration of environmental
significance on May 21, 1991, requiring that an environmental impact statement be prepared.
Since that time, the proposed SLUD has undergone many changes as the GE;IS was being
completed, subject to the review of Town and University reviewers. The most recent version
of the SLUD was included as Appendix 2 in the September 1993 version of the DGEIS,
which was accepted by the Planning Board for completeness with respect to public review. It
is anticipated that the SLUD will continue to evolve as part of this FGEIS process, and may
be modified further during the Findings process. The proposed SLUD will then have to be
approved by the Planning Board as a recommendation to the Town Board after a public
hearing is held. The Town Board will then hold a public hearing on this proposed revision of
the Town Zoning Ordinance as part of the approval process, as with any amendment. Any
further modifications made to the SLUD must be consistent with the GEIS and Findings, or
will trigger a supplemental EIS.
6, Comment: Is the maximum build development premise probable?
Response: The amount of Cornell University growth is unpredictable, but the need
for unspecified increased building space is probable, and the University has undertaken much
planning to see how to best utilize its space and land. To make the core campus efficient for
walking, there should be some expansion to the perimeter of some less centrally necessary
facilities and parking. The only logical place for most of this is to the southeast, to Precinct
7. The amount of increased space need is unknown and the DGEIS has identified a
maximum level of development that seems reasonable for a variety of reasons - 4 million
GSF, although the number could be much less. However, the physical planning limits and
mitigations have to be based on some imagined maximum, and that is the 4 million GSF that
is in the document. The FAR and open space proportions are based on those of an attractive
place on the core campus (the Arts Quad) and are intended to assure the Town that this
maximum level is a reasonable one. The amount of growth to predict is debatable,
constrained by administrative intent and economy no matter what historic trends may suggest.
The maximum levels of development are not necessarily desired or expected, but amount to a
commitment to not exceed what the University feels is a realistic maximum density and use
of this land.
The University has grown at a rate between one and three per cent over its existence.
But the rate of future development is not the basis of the GEIS and would not change its
19
i
DRAF-1-
outcome. Land use and density there are not based on projections of University growth, but
upon the quality and capacity of Precinct 7. There is a stated maximum for future
development, with mitigations at thresholds of development. While there is no realistic
expectation the University could grow by 4 million GSF in ten years, perhaps it could in 30
to 50 years, with much of that in this Precinct. But whatever the rate or amount, that
development is limited by the conditions and characteristics of the GEIS study area.
7. Comment: Water quality issues are not adequately addressed in the DGEIS. These
include potential stream impacts from pollutants such as oil, grease, and
sediment, as well as an increase in temperatures. Development can also
be expected to cause a reduction in low flow due to reduced infiltration.
These effects can have potentially severe impacts since low flow is the
time when pollutants are least diluted and thus stream life is most likely
to be stressed.
Response: When discussing water quality issues relating to Cascadilla Creek, it is
helpful to review existing conditions of the resource that one is attempting to protect.
Cascadilla Creek has a watershed of approximately 8,457 acres, and is the stream which
drains the small valley known as Ellis Hollow. The watershed consists largely of forested,
10 agricultural, and low density rural residential land uses. Precinct 7 is at the base of this
watershed, and is approximately 3.2 percent of the total land area. East of Turkey Hill Road
(approximately one mile east of Precinct 7) Cascadilla Creek is known to support trout, an
indication of the high quality habitat of the stream. Agricultural land uses between Turkey
Hill Road and Precinct 7 degrade the water quality of the creek to some degree, but it
remains a high quality habitat as it passes through Precinct 7, where some erosion problems
on the south side of the steepening stream corridor exist (these are not within the area
intended for rezoning). Figure 1 (include) from the two studies completed by Ichthyological
Associates (Volume 3, Reports 2 and 3 of the DGEIS) illustrates the hydrological relationship
of Precinct 7 to Cascadilla Creek. Stormwater runoff from the Precinct drains into a series of
wetlands and drainageways which do not enter the Creek until the western corner of the
Precinct, near the intersection of Route 366 and Judd Falls Road. Stormwater runoff from a
portion of the developed campus also enters the Creek in this area. The Creek then flows
through a steepening banks for about one half mile to the start of the waterfalls, which
continue for approximately one mile. These waterfalls and the very steep topography change
the nature of the stream drastically. From the base of the falls, Cascadilla Creek is confined
to a drainage channel which is degraded by untreated runoff from the City of Ithaca. It then
flows into the Inlet and ultimately Cayuga Lake. Cascadilla Creek is a high quality habitat
upstream of Game Farm Road and as it runs through Precinct 7, but becomes a mile long
waterfall and a degraded flood control channel in the City, after which it flows into a stream
of far lesser quality, the Inlet, and finally, a deep lake of good quality (though not at the point
0
Game Farm Rd. >•
—7 Ln = z
r '
`J a cc
L� u
c0
' L
F`d
t � a
V
m ro
Cn
.c : ro
L rn
® c
N 3 O_ In
E c
Q' 1: cQ
II II 11 II II . _ V L
T �
• . fr' v g
U
ca
i
N n
0
a a�
in
J n V C
°
ul
u
`c Buda ' o
N 0 a
off u
ar'
>r
Zo A
0 a
r
Game Farm Rd. >•
—7 Ln = z
r '
`J a cc
L� u
c0
' L
F`d
t � a
V
m ro
Cn
.c : ro
L rn
® c
N 3 O_ In
E c
Q' 1: cQ
II II 11 II II . _ V L
T �
• . fr' v g
U
ca
i
N n
0
a a�
in
J n V C
°
ul
u
`c Buda ' o
N 0 a
off u
ar'
>r
Zo A
DRAFT
where the Inlet enters the lake). It is also useful to note that Precinct 7 has been largely
experimental agricultural land in the past, and the stonmwater management plan presented in
the GEIS will help alleviate runoff from this area which presently contains pesticides,
fertilizers, and sediment.
The DGEIS addressed water quality impacts in a general sense in Section II.B.2.a. and
b. (Pages 31 -39). Mitigating measures to address potential adverse water quality impacts are
described in Section II.B.3. (Pages 39 -42). The University has outlined a program to
protect water quality in the Creek by best management practices (BMP's) during construction
(as outlined on Pages I -50 -52 of the DGEIS) and the seven proposed wet retention basins as
shown in Figure 19 (Page II -38: include ?). Section II.B.1.3.b. (Page 1I -42), Mitigating
Measures for Surface Water, include the following measures protect water quality in
Cascadilla Creek:
Stormwater retention facilities should be constructed for each phase of development in
Precinct 7 as part of the basic infrastructure for that phase and prior to construction of
any building. Wet retention ponds improve stormwater by gravity settling, naturally
occurring chemical flocculation and biological uptake. If site constraints preclude wet
retention ponds, detention ponds should be used.
Stormwater wet retention ponds should be constructed to mitigate impacts from
existing runoff, as required.
- Retention ponds should be constructed and sized to provide for settling of pollutants
prior to discharge. Retention ponds should be generally designed in accordance with
DEC's Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development and
should include velocity dissipation device at outfalls to prevent stream scouring or
erosion.
In response to the public comments received, the University contracted with Stearns
and Wheler, an environmental consulting firm, to address cumulative impacts to Cascadilla
Creek in a more comprehensive manner. The issue of reduced flow from development due to
a increase impermeable surfaces was addressed in both the DGEIS and subsequent Stearns
and Wheler report (Appendix .). Section II.B. La. of the DGEIS discusses groundwater
characteristics of the study area. The agricultural lands in Precinct 7 have a system of
subsurface drains which have greatly altered natural groundwater infiltration patterns. The
soils of the study area consist primarily of unconsolidated deposits which are fine - grained
glacial till and morainic deposits. These soils are generally not capable of sustaining
significant recharge to groundwater. Section II.A.l. and Appendix 3 of the DGEIS outline
soil types in the study area. Approximately one half of the soils in Precinct 7 are of the
Collamer series, characterized by low permeability. The Stearns and Wheler report
(Appendix _) concludes that the area proposed for development is only a small part of the
Cascadilla Creek watershed (3.2 percent). Increasing the impervious surfaces in Precinct 7 at
21
MCI•
the full build scenario would represent less than a one percent increase in the impervious
nature of the watershed as a whole. The Stearns and Wheler report ,also concludes that
changes in materials (pollutants) loading to the Creek will not be significant as a result of
development of Precinct 7 with the proposed mitigating measures in the DGEIS. No
exceedances of ambient water quality standards are projected.
In summation, the University has stated a policy of improving and protecting water
quality in Cascadilla Creek. State of the art mitigating measures, including structural and
non - structural best management plans stormwater control, form the foundation for a proposal
to protect water quality in the GEIS. In addition, much work has been accomplished recently
by the University to protect water quality, including conversion from the use of on -site
wastewater treatment systems to central sanitary sewer disposal (sewers were: extended to this
area in the summer of 1993), and development of BMP's for manure handling.
The stormwater management program as outlined in the DGEIS, along with the additional 75
foot buffer zone outlined above (see Section IV.C, Comment 1), will provide: sufficient
protection to the stream environment. Each individual retention basin will be reviewed by the
Town Engineer to insure that they are designed according to the criteria set forth in the GEIS,
and are therefore protective of the stream corridor.
8. Comment: To be adequate I believe the GEIS must attempt to quantify the impacts
which maximum site development would be predicted to have on
reducing stream flow, increasing stream temperatures, and on the
quantities /concentrations of oil, gasoline, salt, and other pollutants which
can be expected from the roads, parking lots, and paved areas. This
information then needs to be interpreted in terms of what the predicted
impact on Cascadilla Creek would be (she lists additional specific
questions; see her comments in Appendix J.
Response: Cornell University recognized that the DGEIS did not adequately address these
issues, and contracted with a consulting firm, Stearns and Wheler (see: Appendix to
quantify projected impacts, and evaluate the proposed mitigating measures to determine if
they were adequate to protect water quality in Cascadilla Creek. The report estimated that
runoff in Precinct 7 would increase by 30 percent if a full build scenario were to occur.
Since the total area of the watershed is 8,457 acres, Precinct 7 is estimated to encompass only
3.2 percent of the watershed, and the increase in impermeable surfacers is estimated at only
one percent of the total runoff for the watershed. As outlined in the previous question, the
DGEIS and supporting documentation adequately address the potential for stream degradation
and propose a program for more than adequate protection of water quality. One must also
take into consideration the downstream characteristics of the Creek, also addressed in the
previous question, to put this issue of low flow impacts such as temperature. Not far
downstream of Precinct 7, the stream becomes a series of waterfalls through very steep
topography. Conditions of elevated temperature and oxygen - deprivation is essentially
22 0
5 h =ki
eliminated in this stretch of stream. Additional quantification of these impacts beyond the
. Stearns and Wheler study is unnecessary in light of the stormwater management program that
Cornell has proposed, and the Town will require as a condition of the development of this
part of the campus.
9. Comment:
Pedestrian/bicycle access to the central campus shouldn't be optional,
there is a need for this and extension to East Hill Plaza
Response: The issue of pedestrian and bicycle access between Precinct 7 and the
central campus is addressed in the D /GEIS.(Fig. 24, p.II -101) Pedestrian and bicycle
transportation related facilities are proposed to be incorporated into the transportation
infrastructure improvements within Precinct 7 and at the various intersections along NYS
Route 366.
A pedestrian link to East Hill Plaza is a longstanding local issue which is only
partially relevant to the University proposed development in Precinct 7. The Town in
cooperation with the University and Tompkins County has already begun development of
such a link as part of the Judd Falls Road/Pine Tree Road intersection reconstruction project
and the Mitchell street reconstruction project, both completed in 1992.
Determining the most desirable location of such a link also involves study beyond the
scope of the D /GEIS: such a link should be designed in a manner that it serve not only
Precinct 7, but those portions of the University north and west of precinct 7 and NYS Route
366.
100 Comment: Pedestrian/bicycle traffic along major roadways not considered; traffic
discussion should include this, not simply automobile traffic
Response: The DGEIS addresses the issue of bicycle and pedestrian traffic and
related safety issues in general. Currently there is no significant bicycle or pedestrian traffic
along either of the roads mentioned, nor is any significant increase anticipated as a result of
future development in the Precinct 7 area. Neither have any significant bicycle or pedestrian
traffic related problems been identified, or are anticipated to result from future development
of the Precinct 7 area.
The feasibility of developing such facilities, however, should not be precluded. An
assessment of their need in the area will be integrated into any design study for the future
widening of NYS Route 366 anticipated in the DGEIS.
Bicycle and pedestrian needs of the entire area are also expected to be addressed in
0 23
DRAH
the transportation plan for the Ithaca metropolitan area not being initiated by the Ithaca -
Tompkins County Transportation Council, of which the Town of Ithaca and Cornell
University are members.
11. Comment: The proposed access from Precinct 7 to Game Farm Road will become
the major thoroughfare for cars leaving the campus
Response: The D /GEIS proposes a Precinct 7 road network that is not likely to
encourage through traffic. Given the conceptual design provided in the D /GEIS (Fig. �)
use of the Precinct 7 road network could be made less attractive to through traffic with
specific street and intersection designs and traffic control devices such as all -way stop signs.
Based on data in the D /GEIS traffic on Game Farm Road between NO'S Route 366
and Stevenson and Ellis Hollow Roads (Vo1.I Fig. 25, App. 6, Figs. 5a & 6a) is estimated to
account for between 3 % and 5% of overall traffic to and from the Universitly. Unless major
residential development occurs over the next two or three decades in the Ellis Hollow area of
the Town of Dryden, or in the Town of Caroline beyond Ellis Hollow -- a factor outside the
scope of the GEIS and outside the control of Cornell University -- it can be reasonably
expected that Game Farm Road, and the road network through Precinct 7, will not become
major thoroughfares for cars leaving the campus.
•
129 Comment: Traffic in Forest Home will increase; free parking in 'A,' lot contributes
to this (designate "B" lot as free lot as well)
Response: The DGEIS does anticipate increased traffic in Forest ]Home as a
result of the proposed future development in Precinct 7. Traffic in Forest Home is a
longstanding problem, resulting from the growth of the University and residential and
commercial development to the north of Forest Home in the towns of Lansing and Dryden
over the past three decades.
No data on the impact of free parking in Cornell University's "A' Lot parking lot in
Cayuga Heights on Forest Home is included in the GEIS, nor was parking in 'A" Lot and its
impacts included in the scope of the document. The parking lot has been in existence for at
least twenty-five years, and attracts commuter traffic from the north, east, and; west as well as
from the south through Forest Home.
The issue of free parking 'B' versus 'A' Lot is a complex environmental and policy
issue that is beyond the scope of the GEIS. Parking for facilities in Precinct 7 will be located
24
C7
0
DRAFT
on site and free parking in any location is not anticipated to impact the traffic patterns
attributed to the Precinct 7 development.
13. Comment: One of the particular and unique charms of Cornell and Ithaca is the
fact that campus meets country in a sharp demarkation rather than
through acres of sprawl. This is due in no small part to the agricultural
lands which Cornell itself owns and operates. I believe that the portion
of Precinct 7 along 366 east of the turn into the BTI research area and
extending along Game Farm Road to and including McGowan's Woods
is and essential component in providing this rural "gateway."
Response: There is a commitment by Cornell to develop in a way that preserves or
enhances special views. To retain some flexibility for use of this land in the very long range,
the University does not wish to commit to having no development along the eastern end of
Precinct 7, but would prefer the flexibility to develop it in a sensitive way with input on
views and general landscape and architectural quality by Town and University reviewers.
Development in this area will be constrained by proximity to Game Farm Road (the proposed
SLUR specifies a minimum setback of 100 feet from a public roadway) and McGowan
Woods (the proposed SLUD as recently amended specifies a 75 foot buffer zone from natural
areas).
14. Comment: There is little in the DGEIS which helps to assess the adequacy of the
proposed set back distances from the significant natural. areas of
McGowan's Woods and Cascadilla Creek. How was the distance
arrived at? The DGEIS says "no area of high quality habitat will be
affected by development." (II -73) How can 30 feet be adequate to
prevent any impact to habitat. Imagine a 1000 car parking lot 30 feet
from McGowan's Woods or the exhaust fans from a 5 story building.
There are inconsistencies in the set back distances mentioned in the
DGEIS. The DGEIS says 30 feet while the draft SLUD says 75 feet.
Response:
15, Comment:
Please see the response to Section N.C., Comment 1.
Protection of steeply sloped areas is not detailed in the DGEIS.
Response: In Precinct 7, the Cascadilla Creek corridor is the only area where slopes in
excess of 15 percent exist. The University has mad a commitment to preserve this area from
development. Additionally, a 75 foot buffer zone will be required to protect the natural areas
25
and these steeply sloped areas form the impacts of increased runoff from development. The
best management practices for construction as outlined in Section LF.2. (Pages I- 50 -52) will
provide adequate protection for sloped areas in the remainder of Precinct 7.
16. Comment: Conversion of prime farmland soils to other users will occur if Precinct
7 is developed. A summary of the number of acres of prime farmland
soils presently owned by Cornell in the Town of Ithaca. and an analysis
of what proportion of these soils would be converted irrevocably to
other uses under the maximum development scenario would be
important information in considering the overall. impact. of this proposal.
Response: Cornell intends to phase out the Orchards in Precinct 7 over the next 20
years while developing land it owns in the Town of Lansing for this purpose. The University
has presented its case for developing Precinct 7 in the GEIS, citing this area as being the
logical location for further campus development based on its proximity to the central campus.
This location makes good sense, and the University lands in the Precinct are well buffered by
lands also owned by the University, thereby minimizing neighborhood impacts. The current
zoning for the district is residential (R -30), not agricultural. If the Town intended this land to
remain agricultural, then it could have designated it as such. Without such a commitment
from the Town to date, it is difficult for the Town to dictate that these Cornell lands remain 46
in agriculture. While food production is a very important land use, the Orchards have been
primarily an experimental and instructional agricultural use, not one of food production. If
the Town wishes to enact a policy that agricultural lands within the Town remain in
agriculture, then this could be considered as part of the intended revisions the Town's Zoning
Ordinance.
17, Comment: The DGEIS does not mention the very important and valuable facilities
which Cornell provides. It is becoming increasingly important to
recognize the value of these lands both as part of the discussions of
"what does Cornell pay back to the community "' and as the overall
development plans for the University proceed. We should work towards
a commitment to retaining these open spaces and public; access to them.
Response: Cornell currently allows the public to use its lands for recreational
purposes such as walking, jogging, hiking, biking, cross country skiing, and birdwatching.
There is no reason to believe that the University would not continue this policy. Much of the
open space in the Town and throughout Tompkins County has remained as such because of
the University's ownership.
26
r
DRAFT
18. Comment: I am confused about the total number of potential employees. Table 20
(II -107) shows a total potential of 7334 employees while V -1 says it
could create a maximum of 4,079 new jobs. Is the difference of 3255
all employees currently on campus who might have their jobs relocated
to Precinct 7 without other new employees taking their place on
campus?
Response: Cornell has no way to accurately predict the number of employees it may
have at a future time; the numbers in the GEIS are derived from extensions of density data.
If one measures the present campus density and projects it to Precinct 7 at some future full
development, one comes up with a population of approximately 7,000. Of that, about 4,000
are assumed to be new employees, and 3,000 moved from the central campus. The space
vacated by the 3,000 is assumed to be for teaching purposes, not replacement staff.
19. Comment: The DGEIS fails to mention the unavoidable adverse impacts to water
quality, noise, and views across the land, from the land and of the land
from Route 366.
•
Response: The DGEIS discusses impacts to ground and surface water in Section II.B.2
a. and b. (Pages II- 31 -39), respectively. Possible visual and noise impacts are discussed in
Section II, J.2.a. and d. (Pages II- 182487), respectively. The University undertook a visual
study of the area (cite: Vol. III, to study the impacts on important views. They have
proposed a series of mitigating measures for visual character (Pages II -187). The setback
from natural areas will be amended as outline above, to designate a 75 foot buffer zone to
protect these areas. Mitigating measures for noise are also discussed (Pages 11489). The
program planned for stormwater management as outlined in the DGEIS should effectively
mitigate potential water quality impacts. To further ensure that water quality impacts are
minimized, the 75 foot buffer zone as mentioned above will be required. These areas were
not mentioned in the unavoidable adverse impacts section because the University has
proposed measures to mitigate these potential adverse impacts.
20. Comment: The alternatives section in the DGEIS does not adequately address less
intensive development as an alternative.
Response: The DGEIS examines a range of potential development. Minimum and
maximum degrees of development were studied. Section III discusses the alternative
27
Ii
.. a
considered in development of Precinct 7. The minimum development scenario represents
what the minimum might likely be. The maximum development scenario is acknowledged by
the University to be more than is likely to occur. However, The Town requested that
University chose some imagined maximum in order to properly complete this study. They
chose a level of development which would allow them to develop while still being within an
environmental quality range the University has set for itself, and that the University believed
the Town could accept. They chose a known standard of design, the Arts Quad on the central
campus, as their density design model. The Town accepted this as a reasonable design
standard for the GEIS. The no -action alternative was also considered (see Section III, Page
III -7), which would still allow the University to develop under the constraints imposed by R-
30 zoning. Both the Town and the University recognize that the R -30 zoning is inappropriate
for the Cornell campus, yet this is the current zoning. It is important: to consider that if
Precinct were to remain as R -30, institutional uses would still be permitted, its well as
residential uses. Overall plans and impacts would not be addressed in such it comprehensive
manner should the land remain as R -30.
Be Barbara L. Peckarsky
L Comment: The GEIS does not provide enough evidence to state unequivocally (as
on p. II -73) that Cascadilla Creek will not be adversely affected by
development. Unmitigated replacement of vegetated areas with paved
areas or buildings would exacerbate surface runoff, increasing bank
erosion on the very steep north bank of the creek. Materials washing
into Cascadilla Creek would primarily increase stream sedimentation
and nutrient loading, with associated residues of pesticides and
petroleum products, which would have negative effects on stream biota.
Thus, the stream biota need to be monitored in order to, assess the
effects of development and proposed mitigation efforts on the water
quality of Cascadilla Creek. Baseline data should be accumulated
indicting the present biological and chemical conditions under baseflow,
bankfull, and floodwater situations, as well as during all seasons to
obtain a record of the existing fauna under the present annual
hydrologic regime and seasonal phenological conditions. This would
make an excellent project for my Stream Ecology class, which will be
offered next during the 1995 spring semester.
Response: Please refer to the discussion of water quality in the previous section
(Section V.A., Nos. 7 and 8). The DGEIS addressed water quality is ; >ues in ;i general sense
in Section II.B.2.a. and b. Cornell has outlined a program which includes best management
practices (BMP's) for controlling erosion and sedimentation during construction. Seven wet
fi
F ;k. &
0- 1 MM
retention basins are also proposed, with general locations as shown in Figure 19 (Page H -48)
of the DGEIS. Two studies were made by Ichthyological Associates to provide baseline data
on water quality and the stream biota. Comell had a consultant, Stearns and Wheler, quantify
stream impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of Comell's stormwater management program
in minimizing adverse impacts.
We are pleased that the stream ecology class will be available in the Spring semester
of 1995 to provide a comprehensive study of the stream ecology. This will be an important
and useful update to the GEIS section on water resources. On -going measurement would be
very desirable; class projects conducted periodically (and dependably) could be very useful
in providing updates of stream quality. Cornell and the Town could then use this information
as to aid in determining how successful their stormwater management system is functioning.
2. Comment: The flow regime of a stream is the single most important abiotic factor
determining the nature of the constituent plant and animal populations.
Alteration of the riparian vegetation irreversibly alters the natural
patterns of stream flow fluctuations affecting the levels of groundwater
saturation, which in turn govern the amount of water available for plant
communities living in areas immediately and remotely adjacent to the
stream channel.
Response: The Stearns and Wheler report (Appendix ) addressed the issue of
• alteration of natural runoff and infiltration patterns. The area proposed for redevelopment is
a relatively small part of the Cascadilla Creek watershed (3.2 percent), and full build as
described in the DGEIS would increase the impervious surfaces of the Precinct, but this
would represent less that one percent of the entire 8,457 acre watershed. Runoff from
developed areas would continue to be routed through the intermittent wetland/drainage Swale
system located immediately north of the East Ithaca recreationway (former railroad bed)
before entry into Cascadilla Creek. Additionally, a 75 foot no -build buffer zone will be
required to protect the natural areas and their vegetation from potential adverse impacts of
development.
3. Comment: The retention/detention pond system should be designed so that it
mimics as closely as possible the natural (or at least present) pattern of
runoff from the proposed area of development into Cascadilla Creek via
the north bank. Sizing of overflow pipes and spillways is critical to
effectively regulating the outflow that will reach the Creek. Designers
of these systems need to recognize that reducing natural flow
fluctuations can be just as damaging as increasing them. I would
recommend establishing flow gauging stations as locations along the
Creek to develop baseline data on the present annual hydrograph so that
the effects of runoff from future retention devices can be closely
monitored.
29
Response: The University has proposed a series of wet retention ;ponds to control
stormwater runoff. This retention system is being developed to minimize disturbance to
Cascadilla Creek. Cornell contracted with Stearns and Wheler (see Appendix J to address
water quality issues, including reduced infiltration, which were not sufficiently addressed in
the DGEIS. The Stearns and Wheler report states that alternative pond designs including
extended detention designs and created wetlands will be evaluated. The final selection for
retention pond design will consider the potential for infiltration of stormwater, maintenance of
baseflow, and pollutant removal. The ponds will be designed to release wavar at a rate that
will maintain existing conditions of stream depth and water velocity during high flow periods.
These criteria for stormwater system design will be made part of the Findings, and all future
site development plans will therefore be subject to these design standards. Final stormwater
retention system design will be subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
4, Comment: CU should consider all available date in future when planning
development projects, not only DGEIS data.
Response: The University and the Town will evaluate all available data in the
design and review of development proposals for Precinct 7, not ,imited to the imformation
presented in the GEIS.
is
C. Bruce and Doug Brittain
1. Comment: The proposed SLUD needs to be revised so as to incorporate off -site
traffic impacts in its performance standards, and in order to more
narrowly define the various land uses which it would allow.
Response: The F /GEIS and associated Findings Statement together will provide a
framework for addressing future off -site traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Precinct 7
development. These impacts are expected to be identified during the site plan approval
process, including environmental review, for individual projects as they are proposed.
2. Comment: Rather than having the implementation of the various mitigation
measures be triggered by the extent of development in the Orchards
area, they should instead be triggered by actual ongoing traffic counts,
or by measured traffic impacts.
30 0
4 4
•
•
•
Response: Please see Response to (IV)D.2 above.
3. Comment: The GEIS recommends the immediate placement of a traffic light at the
Caldwell Road/Route 366 intersection, even though this contradicts the stated
criteria for when and where such traffic lights should be placed.
Response: The intersection evaluation criteria stated in the Traffic Impact Study
includes warrants for traffic signal installation from the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). The Caldwell Road/ Route 366 intersection meets Warrant 10 - Peak
Hour Delay and Warrant 11- Peak Hour Volume for signalization.
4. Comment:
The current Level of Service (LOS) for various intersections was approximated
from motorist delays, which in turn were estimated from a single set of traffic
counts. Since actual intersection geometry plays such a large role in delay, it
would have been much more accurate to have measured these delays directly.
This may explain why the figures for current level of Service included in the
GEIS bear little resemblance to how well the various intersections actually
function.
Response: Level of Service (LOS) - The intersections studied were evaluated using
accepted methods of analysis. While a number of intersections included in the D /GEIS are
more complex than average in terms of configuration, their individual designs do not warrant
direct measurement of delay.
5. Comment: The GEIS states that the Level of Service (LOS) was
in order to limit the traffic impact on the community.
measure of the impact of the community on the flow
of the impact of traffic on the community. Maintaini
have a larger negative impact on Forest Home,
kept high in Forest Home
However, LOS is a
of traffic, not a measure
ng a high LOS is likely to
Response: We concur with the above statement. Maintaining a high level of
Service (LOS) rating for Forest Home will not automatically limit traffic impact on the
community. A higher LOS on Forest Home roads can be achieve through two different
methods: improving the street system to increase the volume capacity of the system, and thus
reducing congestion and delays for existing and future volumes of traffic, for example, or by
reducing traffic volume through diversion of traffic volume to roads outside Forest Home.
31
I�
� I
The intent of the Town is to pursue the latter option, through mitigation measures
identified in the Findings Statement and through the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation 0
Council, of which all parties involved in the GEIS are members.
6. Comment: The GEIS does not recommend solutions for all predicted problems. For
example, traffic noise levels are acknowledged to be currently unacceptable and
predicted to get worse, yet there are no concrete suggestions as to how to
mitigate this impact.
Response: Mitigation for traffic noise levels has not been proposed because
although existing levels are in some cases relatively high, the predicted increases as shown in
the D /GEIS (Table 49) are in all but two locations in the range of two (2) decibels (dB), and
not considered significant. According to the D /GEIS a three decibel increase is generally
considered the minimum perceptible increase in noise levels.(p. II- 183)ln the two locations
where predicted increases in noise levels are in excess of two (2) decibels the increase is
projected to be four (4) decibels.
7. Comment: Some of the traffic count data included in the GEIS were too low. For
example, the Judd Falls Road/Forest Home Drive intersection is listed as
having approximately 300 Vehicles Per Hour (VPH) less traffic than it actually
has. Correcting the count for this intersection would also make the traffic data •
consistent with that reported for the adjacent Pleasant Grove Road/Forest Home
Drive intersection.
Response: The intersection traffic counts for the AM and PM peak hours at the
two intersections in question were examined for inconsistencies by comparing the counts
conducted by Travers Associates in 1991 with counts taken by Bruce: Brittain in 1988.
The peak hour counts at the Pleasant Grove Road/Forest Howie Drive: intersection are
consistent. The counts at the Judd Falls Road/Forest Home Drive intersection are consistent
except for the PM count of the eastbound approach of Judd Falls Road which should be about
300 vehicles higher.
Analysis of the intersection with the addition of 300 vehicles indicates that the
intersection would have a LOS of E under existing conditions. This LOS indicates that the
intersection should be signalized as an existing condition improvement to attain a LOS of A.
The signalization of this intersection as an existing condition gather than as a threshold
condition due to development has no impact on the study findings because the intersection
evaluation criteria requires that the LOS of the intersection never drop below LOS C. Our
32
DRAFT
analysis indicates that the signalized intersection with maximum development with the 300
. additional vehicles would have a LOS of C rather than B.
0
8. Comment: The GEIS has misinterpreted the effect that Cornell's Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program has had on the amount of traffic travelling to
campus. While there has been a decrease in on- campus parking, there has been
an associated increase in off- campus parking in surrounding residential
neighborhoods, as well as an increase in pick -up and drop -off traffic coming to
the university (see pp. [122-23 of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan),
Response: The discussion of the Cornell University Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program in the document (pp. H -103 - 11 -106) appears to be reasonably
accurate in its assessment of the effects of the program.
According to data made available by Tomtran, transit use on routes serving the Cornell
University campus is up by approximately 18% since 1991, and University employees
participating in the OmniPass program account for approximately 36% of Tomtran's ridership.
between 1991 and 1993 the CU Transit routes serving the Northeast and Eastern Heights
areas of the Town of Ithaca have also experienced increases in ridership of 137% (from
20,448 in 1991 to 48,390 in 1993) and 7% respectively.
Ithaca Transit data for the 4th quarter of 1993 shows that 7.3% of its ridership was
comprised of OmniPass program participants.
According to City of Ithaca Department of Planning and Development staff, there is
no evidence of any change in the patterns of onstreet parking in neighborhoods surrounding
Cornell as a result of the University's TDM program.
9. Comment: The GEIS projected a rate of background traffic volume growth of only 0.8%
per year, while County figures indicate an increase of 5.20% to 18.45% for
intersections near the Orchards area. There is no reason to believe that the
single pair of counts taken at the single intersection chosen in the GEIS is any
more accurate or representative than the County's seven pairs of counts at
seven area intersections. Since the projected rate is only approximately one -
tenth of what may actually be expected, the anticipated problems are therefore
likely to occur much sooner than predicted.
Response: The figures provided by the Tompkins County Department of Public
Works to the University, including the figures for the intersections referenced above, came
33
1W
It
with a disclaimer by County personnel with regard to their accuracy and reliability.( letter
from James T. Kazda, P.E. to Lawrence Fabbroni, P.E. dated April 5, 1993 - inclide in •
appendix ?)
The two intersections chosen by Cornell for use in project future background traffic
growth appear to appropriate choices. Both intersections are located on major arterial routes
connecting substantial traffic generating nodes (Collegetown, City of Ithaca and points south
and west, Town of Dryden, intersection of NYS Route 366 and NYS Route; 13, etc.) that
have also in the past decade experienced average or above average growth in terms of
population and commercial, industrial, or residential development.
10. Comment: The GEIS has underestimated Cornell's historic annual growth rate,
which has averaged 3% per year. If the university continues to grow at
the rate it has been, the maximum expected development of 4,368,000
GSF will be reached in 10 or 11 years, not in the 20 or 30 years that
the GEIS predicts.
Response: The development program outlined in the D /GEIS does not depend on
time or schedule, but on the need and demand for the type of and level of development for
which environmental impacts are being analyzed. The actual timing of development is thus
not expected to be a significant factor in terms of environmental impacts. The annual growth
rate of the University has varied from year to year since its founding, and is expected to
continue to vary. However the rate of growth is not expected to significantly alter the
impacts anticipated for the proposed program of development.
11. Comment: While the proposed SLUD has performance standards for off -site
impacts such as noise, vibration, odor, glare, etc., there: are none for
traffic impacts on nearby residential areas. Since traffic problems are
probably the single most important off -site impact, it is critical that they
be included here. Development of the Orchards area should not be
allowed to result in a net increase in off -site traffic impacts.
Response: Please see Response (V)B.1 above.
12. Comment: The GEIS neglected to consider retaining the area as a producing apple
34 •
w
40
C]
7lot l
orchard. This would preserve the educational, research, environmental,
and aesthetic attributes of the Orchards, while avoiding the undesirable
impacts (traffic, etc.) of development of this site.
Response: The D /GEIS does address the retention of the area as an orchard, both
in the D /GEIS and in a number of University planning documents. The retention of the area
as orchards has been weighed against campus expansion in other directions, as well as
through increasing the density of older areas of the campus.
13. Comment: The GEIS did not explore the concept of relocating future development
to Cornell -owned land near the Tompkins County Airport (within the
Town of Lansing and Dryden). Since the GEIS states that Orchards -
area development would not be closely linked to central campus
activity, there is little reason to locate this development adjacent to the
campus on land that is valuable for other uses. The availability of
essentially unused land which is served by NYS Route 13 and the
Tompkins County Airport, and the proximity of the Cornell Research
Park all make Cornell's Lansing and Dryden lands seem more
appropriate for this development than the Orchards tract.
Response: The D /GEIS does not explore the concept of relocating future growth to
University lands near the Tompkins County Airport. However the utility of exploring that
particular alternative is questionable for a number of reasons, including distance from the
central campus, the limited amount of land available for development; the large number of
wetlands in that area, including the Sapsucker Woods wetland complex; proximity to a
number of established residential neighborhoods, and the inappropriateness from a land use
planning perspective of such large scale development adjacent to an airport.
Development of University facilities in the vicinity of the airport of the type and scale
envisioned in the D /GEIS could also result in major offsite traffic impacts as University
employees, students, and others travel between the two nodes of activity.
14. Comment: The GEIS failed to consider the possibility of no further growth of
Cornell. If the University follows President Rhodes' advice to become
"better, not bigger ", then there is no need to develop land in the
Orchards or anywhere else. This scenario would preserve all of the
current attributes, avoid all of the potential negative impacts, cost
nothing, cause no disruption or hardship, and would require no
mitigating measures.
M
4k d
w
Response: The issue of whether or not Cornell University desires to expand into
Precinct 7 is an internal University matter. It is assumed that the Cornell Board of Trustees, •
as the governing body of the University, is aware of the proposed long term plans for
development of the Orchards area and has approved the plans, the request to rezone the
Precinct 7 lands, and the expenditure of funds used to prepare the GEIS.
•
36 0