HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-03-15FILED
TOWN OF
Date.Yb.Q
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 15, 1994
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, March 15, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Eva
Hoffmann, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, Stephen Smith,
Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), Louise Raimondo (Planner
I), John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Larry Fabbroni.
Chairperson Kenerson
p.m. and accepted, for t
Posting on March 8, 19949
Chairperson Kenerson
assembled, as required by
Office of Fire Prevention
declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :34
he record the Secretary's Affidavit of
read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
the New York State Department of State,
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: SANCTUARY WOODS SUBDIVISION; PROPOSED TWELVE
LOT SUBDIVISION ON ITHACA TAX PARCELS 70- 10 -3.5, 73- 1 -8.2, 4.04+/ -
ACRES TOTAL, WITH WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS, APPROXIMATELY 760
LINEAR FEET OF ROADWAY, AND A TWENTY FOOT TRAIL RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED FOR PARK AND RECREATION LAND DEDICATION, LOCATED AT 238
SAPSUCKER WOODS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. STEPHEN P. LUCENTE,
OWNER /APPLICANT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Sketch Plan Review in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:37 p.m.
Larry Fabbroni, representing Stephen P. Lucente, addressed the
Board and stated that he would like to get the Board's input on a
proposed 11 or 12 lot subdivision. (Sketch Plan is hereto attached
as Exhibit #1) Mr. Fabbroni gave a brief description of the
property and its location. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the land
referred to in the Sketch Plan was owned by Mrs. Hughes and that
Mr. Lucente would purchase the parcel from her. Mr. Fabbroni
stated that the sketch plan was designed to keep development away
from the Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there
was a small wetland on Lot ##2 of approximately 0.15 acres, where
there used to be an old barn that was taken down. Mr. Fabbroni
felt that the demolition of the barn led to the wetland. Mr.
Fabbroni stated that one advantage to the sketch plan before the
Board is that there is a line of mature trees that would make a
natural buffer to separate the Hughes property from the Lucente
Planning Board 2 March 15, 1994
lands. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he wanted the Board's opinion on
the wetland. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the drainage would flow to
the west and north from the back lots. Mr. Fabbroni stated that
all of the lots were R -15 lots. Mr. Fabbroni stated that in regard
to density, none of the lots were less than 15,000 square feet.
Louise Raimondo, Planner I, stated that the proposed walkway
was located on Rocco Lucente's land, not on Stephen Lucente's land.
Ms. Raimondo stated that there needed to be an easement or
agreement between them with regard to the walkway and the cul -de-
sac.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that when the preliminary
subdivision approval comes before the Board, there would need to be
an agreement stating that the proposed land could be used as
proposed, or Rocco Lucente would need to join as one of the
subdividers.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that he understood that Stephen Lucente
was to buy the land from Rocco Lucente.
Board
Member
Stephen Smith stated
that the Board needed to
determine
if they
wanted the walkway or
cul -de -sac.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann
stated
that
according
to
Page 5 of
the
wetland
than that.
delineation study,
there
are 5
+/- acres
of
land.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, stated that 5 +/- acres came from
the Hughes property plus the small part of Rocco Lucente's land
shown on the Sketch Plan, which means that there is a .5 acre
required for the ten percent set aside.
Board Member Candace Cornell
Review Committee had prepared a
Kenerson and the Planning Board
regarding this Sketch Plan. Ms.
comments. (Environmental Review
attached as Exhibit #2)
stated that the Environmental
memo addressed to Chairperson
members with several comments
Cornell read portions of those
Committee comments are hereto
Ms. Cornell asked Mr. Fabbroni what the intentions were for
the area marked Open Space on the north end of the map? (Map is
hereto attached as Exhibit #3)
Mr.
Fabbroni
stated that it was
intended to be open space and
he could
not tell
her anything
more
than that.
Raimondo stated
Planner
the property
I, Louise Raimondo,
marked open space
stated that she understood
was under discussion between
that
the
Lucente's and
would go to
Cornell
Cornell
University
as a buffer
for a land deal, whereby that
for the bird sanctuary.
land
Ms.
Raimondo stated
that
that issue
is separate from the subdivision
issue before
the Board tonight.
Ms. Raimondo stated that she
was
Planning Board 3 March 15, 1994
M aware that there was no park and open space dedication shown on the
maps, and when she discussed this project with Stephen Lucente he
stated that most of the surrounding land belonged to Rocco Lucente,
but that Rocco Lucente did not wish to be tied into an open space
plan that is linked to Stephen Lucente's subdivision. Stephen
Lucente does not wish to have this project linked to his father's
possible projects in terms of the parks and recreation dedication.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that he felt that the Board's
concerns were about the land outside the applicant's property, the
cul -de -sac and the pathway, and how the Board could be assured that
the property is a part of this proposal. Chairperson Kenerson
stated that an additional concern with the proposal was the wetland
and what to do with it.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked if the
cul -de -sac
needed
to
be subdivided off Rocco Lucente's land and turned over to the Town
of Ithaca in order to use it as part of Steve
Lucente's
proposal.
Mr. Smith stated that he didn't think it
was right
that
the
requirements for open space and the cul -de -sac
were being
addressed
with
property
that
is not Stephen
Lucente's.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that the land for the cul -de -sac land and
the walkway land would be deliverable and owned by Stephen Lucente
when the proposal comes before the Planning Board for subdivision
approval.
Town Attorney John Barney asked Mr. Fabbroni if the agreement
would include the walkway connecting to something.
Mr. Fabbroni responded that an agreement could be arranged.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the dedication should
have a beginning and an end, rather than something that deadends
nowhere as shown on the map. Attorney Barney stated that there
would need to be a commitment from Rocco Lucente that stated a
specific amount of land would be made available.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked what the purpose of the
walkway was.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that a walkway is only good
if there is a destination. Mr. Walker stated that a walkway
dedicated to the Town implies a responsibility of the Town to
maintain it. Mr. Walker stated that there were two routes that the
walkway could take in order to meet the conditions from the first
subdivision approval of Briarwood II. Mr. Walker stated that one
route would be to Birchwood South to Sapsucker Woods Road, the
second route would be to Birchwood North, Mr. Walker stated that
an advantage to the Town could be to utilize the right of way as a
walkway as a connection from this subdivision to Salem Drive which
would open up that area to the public. Mr. Walker stated that the
Planning Board 4 March 15, 1994
Town already owns the easement on the map. The Town is in the
process of putting a gravel surface on that easement and using
fiber mesh to support the gravel to prevent sinking into the damp
soils. Mr. Walker stated that this gives the Town a hard enough
surface to drive vehicles on it in order to maintain the sewer
lines. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Master Plan
from 40 years ago did not address the wetland issues or
environmental issues. Mr. Walker stated that the proposed sketch
plan was a scaling back of the Master Plan. (Map hereto attached as
Exhibit #1)
There
was
some
discussion
among the Board Members regarding
the Master
Plan
mentioned
by Mr.
Walker.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Board should
require a temporary easement for access to meet the immediate Park
and recreation needs for Sanctuary Woods. Mr. Walker stated that
the 150 -foot strip which does not go anywhere was put there with
the intention to provide some mitigation for the park land
requirement. Mr. Walker stated that if the Town were to utilize a
trail there, it would be more appropriate if there was a starting
point and an ending point.
The Board Members concurred with Mr. Walker's last statement.
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if Mr. Walker was
suggesting a temporary public access granted in two directions in
lieu of open space dedication.
Town
Engineer Daniel Walker replied,
yes.
Mr. Walker stated
that he would recommend to the Board to
ask
for help from the
developer
in constructing that trail and ask
that the Town be given
a right to
use it. Mr. Walker stated that
the
Town would not need
to expend
funds to develop the walkway
in
order to make it
functional
today, and it would be a link
for
the people in the
neighborhood.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that trails do serve a
function, and that roads cannot always take the place of a trail.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that he agreed with Ms.
Cornell and that an additional consideration would be an improved
shoulder width to provide additional space for walking.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann, referring to the temporary
trailway, asked what happens after the period of time when Rocco
Lucente's land would be developed, and this is no longer a
temporary trail system. Would the Board require some additional
open space dedication.
Town
Attorney
John Barney
stated
that the trail.
would be
a
condition
for the
Sanctuary
Woods
Subdivision
and
would
be
Planning Board 5 March 15, 1994
irrelevant to future development by Rocco Lucente of the
surrounding lands. Attorney Barney stated that at the time that
Rocco Lucente brings in a proposal would be the time to look at
what would be an appropriate open space dedication for the
subdivision of the remaining lands.
Mr. Fabbroni stated that he was suggesting that there be some
kind of firm commitment from Rocco Lucente that he provide for the
half acre set aside requirement for this subdivision, in addition
to the Town of Ithaca's normal requirement on any future
subdivisions of his own.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that there would be the
required 10% plus a half an acre required on any future
subdivision.
Board Member Virginia Langhans asked if the temporary easement
would be cleared.
Town
Engineer Daniel
Walker stated
that
he would recommend
that the
Board require it
to be improved
to a
walking surface.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Board needed to address
the wetland issue. Chairperson Kenerson stated that the suggestion
has been made that the Board allow it to be filled in.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that according to Louise
Raimondo's letter dated March 7, 1994, it stated that Mr. Fabbroni
was working on a wildlife corridor.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, stated that in her discussion with
Stephen Lucente, he had mentioned as compensation for filling in
the wetland area that he would propose a wildlife corridor between
Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary, the Cornell University Sanctuary to the
North, the Briarwood II wetland, and possibly orienting the houses
to be built in a manner to allow for a wildlife corridor to allow
the wildlife to migrate down to the larger wetland area.
Mr.
Fabbroni stated
that
Stephen
Lucente could combine Lots #1
and #2
if
if the
the
Board
does
#2 was a
not
want
the
wetland
to be filled.
Attorney John Barney stated that if the Board approves the
sketch plan it would be equivalent to saying fill the wetland, if
the Board does not approve the sketch plan it would be equivalent
to saying do not fill it.
Board
Member
Eva
Hoffmann
asked
Board
Member Candace Cornell
if the
wetland
on
Lot
#2 was a
significant
wetland.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that it was not a
significant wetland. Ms. Cornell stated that she thought this a
more appropriate place for development than some of the surrounding
Planning Board
areas. Ms. Cornell stated
the Town of Ithaca could
path to make sure that in
some kind of rights.
0
March 15, 1994
she was concerned about the path and if
legally secure temporary rights to the
the future the Town of Ithaca maintains
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board could make
that a condition of Preliminary Site Plan approval to secure the
rights to the pathway.
Mr. Fabbroni,
summarizing what he felt that the
Board decided
about the Sketch
Plan before them,
stated that Lot #2 would be
considered a separate lot, that an
instrument for
the temporary
easement for the
walkway was needed,
and that there
were a number
of engineering issues
that would need
to be addressed
with the Town
Engineer.
Chairperson
Kenerson declared
the
discussion
regarding the
Sanctuary Woods
Sketch Plan to
be duly
closed at 9:03
p.m.
At
this time,
Board
Member Candace Cornell excused herself
from the
remainder
of
the
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION OF DRAFT CORNELL UNIVERSITY FINAL GENERIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the discussion in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 9:17 p.m.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that there had been an additional
meeting with Cornell University representatives and some progress
was made. From the FGEIS there is a legal timeframe of' 30 days for
the Planning Board to come up with the Findings. The Special Land
Use District (SLUD) has been drafted and needs to be reviewed, and
it would then go to the Town Board for approval.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, stated that
University's comments were editorial. Ms. I
there were a few issues that caused problems.
Attorney John Barney where the figures of
coverage and 45% for total maximum coverage of
road, pavement, parking lots, etc., came from
Exhibit #5).
the bulk of Cornell
taimondo stated that
Ms. Raimondo asked
25% total building
structures including
(Page 6 of attached
Attorney John Barney stated that 25% of the building area was
originally presented by Cornell University representatives as part
of the performance standards that they set forth. Attorney Barney
stated that the original performance standards dial not have
anything for total land coverage at all. Attorney Barney stated
that there should be some overall limitation of land coverage as
well as building coverage.
Planning Board 7 March 15, 1994
Ms. Raimondo stated that Lew Roscoe, representative of Cornell
University, stated that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Arts Quad
was 0.9, and within the same paragraph the percentages are
mentioned as though they were referring to the same thing, and they
were not. Ms. Raimondo stated that an alternate definition of
"site" needed to be determined. Ms. Raimondo stated that she had
received an alternate definition of site from Attorney Shirley
Egan, Cornell University's legal counsel. Ms. Raimondo stated that
she wanted the Board Members to think about what they felt would be
a good definition of "site ". Ms. Raimondo stated that she did not
want to pass this out at the meeting because the Board is not going
to discuss the SLUD, the Board is to discuss what became of the
discussion with Cornell representatives and Town of Ithaca
representatives.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that there were two
critical things that the site coverage does, 1) it impacts the
visual aspects of what is happening, and, 2) what it does to the
stormwater management runoff. Mr. Walker stated that the
consultant was looking at the possibility of 450 of the surface of
a site being paved or impervious when he evaluated it for future
potential runoff, and the potential for a site to handle that kind
of stormwater management. Mr. Walker stated that anything above
45% would cause problems with the ability to handle runoff.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that Cornell University was
unwilling to commit a site in perpetuity to an additional site, so
in an effort to try to accommodate that, it was decided to define
site to say that Cornell could modify the site, but that Cornell
would have to commit at least enough area of land on any site in
perpetuity so that the building could not exceed more than 250 of
the ground coverage.
There was a generalized discussion regarding the percentages
of ground coverage and building coverage that would be and should
be allowed.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she was very concerned
with the views within the study area and that she had mentioned it
at earlier meetings. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the public comments and
the Planning Board members comments would be included in the GEIS.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not feel that she could approve
the GEIS without knowing that the comments and concerns were all
addressed and /or included in the document. Ms. Hoffmann was also
concerned with materials incorporated by reference.
Town staff will look into correcting these concerns in the
Final document.
Planner I, Louise Raimondo, stated that what was said in the
Final GEIS should be consistent with what was said in the SLUD.
Planning Board
DOO
March 15, 1994
The Board discussed the tentative Planning Board meeting
schedule in relation to the GEIS approval. The Board continued its
discussion regarding the timeframe for comments regarding the GEIS,
there was some discussion regarding the views and whether or not
they would be disturbed by possible development.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson
declared the discussion of the Draft Cornell University Generic
Environmental Impact Statement duly closed at 10:26 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Robert Kenerson asked the Board their opinion
regarding Planning Board Member Project Assignments as shown in his
Memorandum dated March 15, 1994 (Memo attached hereto as Exhibit
#6)•
There was a consensus of the Board Members not to have member
assignments on specific projects.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the March 15, 1994
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
10 :39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae Hays,
Town of Ithaca
Recording Secretary
Planning Board
od
tn
l
I
I\
f
K.,
�1.
31 \
< I
�0
`k
I
i
T
i n
1
y
�
Z
P
t^
y
V
C
U
O
W
K
Oc! s000/A C�(]4,VD ]sd t/s ' uzaz 3 �E•rt.cN
2
to
e
W
J c 4
w co
z r
1 m 3 I,f7 •r9 ( Fi Bo/ 3aS0, tS�L NOCfc`r
/ I
I0
o
� p
Im ,
iS✓II .Y. Eb so, 6N
I � \
0Q •N o h pip
p
0
� 2
N \ \ OD
Iz-
\� 6n'aS/'� •ct,SOcbN� —�� _ Oo =/ 3„Eb.i0.8N
m vl o \ V
O O O V
° ° � cC
ckf
i'^ c
° o Eb.3 c08N j o0 oS /3,E6,.s 9 N 4 C
Z a r O ?
�/ \ bB'oy/ 3eb, >ooB N o0
OS/ 3.,`k-„Sod a N \
°
i<
(j Ise i
1
—9
I \ Nu /
�rknsvrs
(�c /%LL
3 3IAP C in o»o�
(-'IUw _ Nol!NDA I
K3 itz
ec
u
Lo
CeD
=o
b D
D
V
� Z
� Z
Q
J
� {c
11 V• V V L 1 • wa'.
F1 NAB.
March 11, 1994 3111*)
TO: Mr. Robert Kenerson and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Members
FROM: Janet E. Hawkes, Chairperson, Town of Ithaca Conservation
Board Environmental Review Committee
SUBJECT: Sanctuary Woods Subdivision Sketch Plan Project No. 9311118
(Ithaca Tax Parcels 70 -10- 3.5, 73 - 1 -7.2, and 73 - 1 -8.2)
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) evaluated the possible
environmental impacts resulting from dividing the 4.04 acre parcel into
twelve R15 building lots as shown on the Sanctuary Woods Preliminary
Subdivision Plat dated January 21, 1994 designed by L. Fabbroni.
The ERC does not advise subdivision based on this proposed design for the
following reasons,
(1) The wetland spanning lots #1, #2 and #3 on the plat provides
essential drainage and stormwater retention for this area. Filling the wetland
to create a building lot is an unnecessary waste of an valuable resource.
Perhaps a better use of this wetland would be to incorporate it into a
stormwater management system for the entire subdivision.
(2) The ERC would like clarification on the proposed cut de sac and N-
S walkway because they are outside the bounds of this subdivision. The
isolated NOS walkway offers no apparent usefulness as a trail and d= not
appea r on the "Sketch Plan Briarwood II dated 1/5/94; revised 1/24/94" that
includes the Sanctuary Woods Subdivision. It is hard to evaluate the utility of
this limited dedication when we don't have a comprehensive plan showing the
public dedications for the entire group of proposed subdivisions.
Therefore, the ERC proposes the following:
(1) The existing gravel- covered utility right -of -way crossing the area
currently labeled as lots #7 -12 is already frequently used as a path by residents
in neighboring subdivisions and homes to allow passage to other
neighborhoods, bus stops, schools, Salem Park, Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary,
1
Exhibit #2
�.VI \I`ILLL /LVLLVI -I ILL•lJ%JI A�.JI VL.1. I1 -ai I.�.i I I 1...
V
and other destinations. The utility right -of -way will remain open and
® maintained by the Town for routine utility upkeep. This established
pedestrian thoroughfare would make an excellent addition to the Town's Park
and Open Space Plan. The ERC recommends that public access be granted to
the right -of -way as a pedestrian trail. Landowners whose properties this trail
crosses could seed the trail with grass with the permission of the 'Town and
plant screening between the trail and their homes. In lieu of a park and open
space dedication, Mr. Lucente could secure public access to this trail on the
areas currently labeled as lots #7 -12. To complete the trail, perhaps public
access could also be granted on the short section that crosses the lot deeded to
Patricia Lucente.
(2) To make a public access trail more attractive to the homeowners in
the area currently labeled as lots #7 -14, these four lots could be reconfigured
into two lots. This would allow more choices in siting the houses with a
greater distance from the existing utility right -of -way. (Whether the public
trail option is accepted or not, home owners may want larger lots to distance
their houses from the right -of -way.)
(3) As mentioned above, the wetland (spanning lots #1, #2 and #3)
should be left intact and could be integrated into a stormwater management
® system.
(4) Although the action before us does not involve the other
subdivisions proposed on lands in the immediate vicinity owned by Stephen
and Rocco Lucente, the ERC was given the "Sketch Plan Briarwood II dated
1/5/94; revised 1/24/94" to examine as an overall scheme for the area. The
ERC recommends that all future park and open space dedications should be
large enough to serve the combined populations of the proposed subdivisions
( "Sketch Plan Briarwood U dated 1/5/94 and revised 1/24/94 ") instead of
scattered pocket -parks or short walkways (such as the one proposed herein).
Additional park and open space dedications could be contiguous to Salem Park
with a trail system connecting destinations.
•
cc: Dan Walker, Town Engineer
Louise Raimondo, Planner I
2
OPIEN
Sw4
uct
P 'e
EA
rrp
s
wm
(101K)
i� /N 24*e7)
BE
of x4apa 8y SPMVC
I � w � i• � � � 'I� e�� 1Ri�l
� MF74AA� S7DNfI�y�
I I �
� I I
' TowN of -- —
I
I I 1
I I
cexr•E ,
I
a i
.(0/ ,
w
I
I
\
1 I I
i I I
I- —
i , \
i � 1
i�
T
Y
Q)
c
A
E4
N
O
0
0
0
0
0
I
v
I
I
i
I
i
I
•
•
•
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747
FAX (607) 273 -1704
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Louise Raimondo, Planner LOOOO
DATE. March 7, 1994
RE: Proposed Sanctuary Woods Subdivision Sketch Plan
PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783
Enclosed is a sketch plan entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Sanctuary Woods,"
dated 1/21/94 and a master plan entitled "Sketch Plan Briarwood II," dated 1/5/94.
Stephen Lucente, the developer, will be represented by Larry Fabbroni, the project
surveyor and engineer, at the March 15th Planning Board meeting. Town staff requested
the latter of these two sketch plans to gain a better understanding of the Lucentes' plans
for this area, and how the proposed Sanctuary Woods subdivision relates to other proposed
Lucente subdivisions and additional lands owned by Rocco Lucente in the area. Stephen
Lucente has indicated that he wishes to gain Town approval for Sanctuary Woods at this
time, but the timeframe for development of Briarwood II is not yet known.
Stephen Lucente has proposed the 12 lot Sanctuary Woods as a temporary cul -de-
sac, with a through street proposed to Birchwood Drive at an unknown time in the future,
when Rocco Lucente develops his lands to the west of this proposed subdivision. The
sketch plan dated 1/21/94 shows the boundaries of a small wetland located on proposed lot
#2 which Mr. Lucente wishes to fill as part of this proposal. Mr. Lucente is working on
plans for a potential wildlife corridor for the area which Mr. Fabbroni will present to the
Planning Board on the March 15th meeting as compensation for filling this 0.15 acre
wetland. I have on several occasions reviewed the Town's Wetlands Guidelines and
Policy (6/7/93) with Mr. Lucente and provided him with a copy of this document. I have
also recommended to Mr. Lucente that he design his subdivision to avoid impacting this
small wetland, but he wishes to make his case for filling this small wetland before the
Board. This small wetland, although not particularly significant in terms of the flora and
fauna it supports, does provide a stormwater retention function in an area of the Town
which is known to have drainage problems. Attached is a Wetlands Delineation Report by
Terrestrial Environmental Specialists (TES) on this wetland for your review. I took some
photographs of this wetland last fall which I will have at the meeting to assist you in
making your decision on the fate of this small wetland.
11
Exhibit #4
3/15/94 Minutes
® Town staff have requested clarification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
( USACE) regarding the extent of fill permitted for the proposed Briarwood II subdivision
as well as Sanctuary Woods. A letter dated 1/26/94 from the Town Engineer is included
as Appendix A of the TES report. We have not yet received a response from the USACE
for the proposed Lucente subdivisions, although Mr. Lucente has related to Town staff that
the USACE told him they will consider Sanctuary Woods a separate project from
Briarwood II and will therefore allow him to fill this small wetland under a Nationwide
permit.
You will note that there is a proposed walkway from Sanctuary Drive south to the
proposed Briarwood II subdivision which ends at the property line. This is to fulfil their
park and recreation requirement (up to 0.4 acre) for Sanctuary Woods. This could be a 20
foot wide right of way with a 6 foot paved path down the center, which could be plowed
in winter as a commuter path. Mr. Lucente has indicated that they would be willing to
extend this walkway to the extension of Birchwood Drive North as part of a park and
recreation requirement for Briarwood II if the Board is interested in pursuing this idea.
The 1/21/94 sketch plan shows a water and sewer line traversing the northern
portion of lots 7 through 12. With the minimum front yard setback being 25 feet,
development of this lot would be limited to a 43 foot depth, with a 10 foot setback from
• the sewer line. Also, rear yard improvements to the property would be limited to a lawn
above the water and sewer lines in order to allow the Town free access to maintenance of
these utility lines. Mr. Lucent was advised of these constraints at recent meetings with
staff.
Attachments
C:V Devrevs \Majprojs\L.ucente\SWoods.mem
0
2
k 00
jy OF ITl'
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
® 1P Y
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747
FAX (607) 273 -1704
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Whitcomb, Town Supervisor
Carolyn Grigorov, Town Board
Robert Kenerson, Chair, Planning Board
Stephen Smith, Vice Chair, Planning Board
Candace Cornell, Planning Board
Daniel Walker, Town Engineer
John Barney, Town Attorney
Lewis Roscoe, Cornell University, Director, Campus Planning
FROM:
DATE,
® RE:
Louise Raimondo, Planner
March 1, 1994
Precinct 7 Draft FGEIS
ZONING 273 -1783
Enclosed is a copy of the draft FGEIS for Cornell University's Precinct 7, as
approved in substance by the Planning Board on February 15, 1994 (see attached
resolution). Some modifications to the document have been made since that time; these
are shown in italics. A meeting between the University and the Town has been scheduled
for Tuesday, March S, 1994 at 2:15 p.m. at Campus Planning in the Humphries Service
Building to discuss this draft document. I look forward to seeing you all there.
pc: Planning Board Members
Attachments
C :\CUGEIS\Town -CU.MEM
Exhibit #5
3/15/94 Minutes
•
n
i MIMI it
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
u
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
Robert Bland, Senior Environmental Engineer, Facilities and Campus Services
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary/Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
I. Introduction
II. Description of Action
III. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD OCTOBER 19, 1993 AND NOVEMBER 16, 1993
IV. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES AND
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COUNCILS
A. Tompkins County Department of Planning
B. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
C. 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
B. Barbara Peckarsky
C. Bruce and Doug Brittain
VI. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES, WITH ADDITIONS �LND MODIFICATIONS
DISTRIBUTION LIST
2
c:
G APPENDICES
•
•
DRAFT
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, 1993.
Response to Water Quality Issues Cascadilla Creek, DGEIS, January 1.994, Stearns and
Wheler, Cazenovia, New York.
3
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 CorneIl'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 (see Figure 1). 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. In addition
to the lands of Precinct 7, the Town requested that Cornell University examine a study area
which includes Precincts 8 and 9, consisting largely of lands also owned by the University
1,.(see Figure 1) and located to the south of Precinct 7. A SLUD has been requested for
Precinct 7, but not the entire study area. The extended study area has been included to allow
the Town to evaluate overall development impacts of the area.
The purpose of this Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) is to
respond to all public comments on the draft document. Substantial public comments were
received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning, the Tompkins County
Environmental Management Council, the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee,
and the New York State Department of Transportation, as well as from the general public.
The minutes of the public hearing held on October 19, 1993 during which public comment
was received are included in Appendix _. The full text of all written comments received in
included in Appendix _. The intent of this FGEIS is to address each comment in as much
detail as possible, given the most up to date and accurate information available. Because the
details of Cornell's development program for Precinct 7 are not yet know, this Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) cannot give sufficient detail at this point in the
review process to answer all comments raised. In these instances, the Town and University
have set forth guidelines to insure that potential environmental impacts from development will
be effectively mitigated. This 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 the EAF and
supplementary project reviews. As stated in the GEIS, it is anticipated that the Town will
always require the preparation of a long environmental assessment form (LEAF) for each
project to enable it to evaluate the project itt light of the information contained in the GEIS,
the Findings Statement, and the SLUD (Page vii of DGEIS, Vol I). Thus, such data as
traffic and water quality may be subject to additional analysis at the time of specific project
proposals. The University and the Town will carefully evaluate all available data in the
design and review of development proposals for Precinct 7, not limited to the information
presented in the GEIS.
2
•
•
�\ CORNELL
PLANTATX lL4
% e 1
��.: RNE l: • 1.
Sc.00L
or
Vol
WOODS
MAY
GAME
� ( 1
• �� =—
..L,, CREED
° 1
°
WPLEVA00`�r..e �`Mt, ° 1
PARK
EAST LAYWO
CEaETERY it f tC !
. 1
r
1166 a � srAEFr
c ,r u�'r NU PLAZA 1
❑ oAR
LANE / s \arD %
p o 1
1 Pn ENIMS MIItIfM
_
❑❑ ❑i p ;tea / �. �
aaoa0 � �
FACUTY
❑ /� E CeNrEERN 1 VETERINARY o v
It 7c
000 ` $ SNYDER NICE
\mw\� O 1 m or a s s tr ao m a to a s �[ • i
i 1 0 ❑i o o ❑. 1 1 r 1 I
b �NONNESS LANE C i'
—o i❑o
I= c3 ❑❑��❑ :I 1 Ve 1
o'
oU❑ 13 ��9 r NUNGENFORO;
od .
00 0 1 11 1
o � /
E o0 0
0 Soo +000 r1 I .L.. o m
oe� J U •
oay Io oaoo p
•o C
c
o • ° o
o • o c a c
STUDY • 0 00 °°
o, o °o
AREA O oo °o o`
0 0 0 ° 00 0 1
0
00 0
the LA group
Landscape Arzhitecrure
and Engincenng, EC.
40 Long Alley
S=oga Spring
New York 12866
518/587 -8100
Tclefax 518/587 -0180
DRAFT GF.NF.RIC ENVIRONMENTAL.
IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
SOUTHEAST
GEIS Study Area
5
Figum
1
i
II. Description of Action 0
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 staffs movements from one class to another in the course
of a day. Other University lands were also studied for appropriate long term uses. A second
conclusion was that the lands to the southeast of the main campus in Precinct 7 are the
logical place for expansion of facilities which did not require a central campus location.
Cornell University applied their future needs for possible expansion in this area against the
uses permitted by the Town of Ithaca zoning, which is residential (R -30).
The University then approached the Town with a proposed Special Land Use District
more appropriate to their plans for Precinct 7. The Town requested more information on
Cornell's plans for Precinct 7, and the Planning Board, acting as lead agency for the proposed
rezoning, made a positive declaration of environmental significance on May 21, 1991,
declaring that the 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 Comell, the proper format for the environmental review process
was a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS), in which various alternatives for
development are examined. Cornell University has examined the environmental impacts of a
development program ranging from 296,000 gross square feet of floor area (GSF) up to
470007000 GSF. 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 proposed SLUD specifies
that total ground coverage of a site be no more than 25 percent, and that the total maximum
coverage of a site by structures, road pavement, parking lots, and pedestrian area pavements
be no more than 45% of a site.
Both Cornell University and the Town recognize that,the amount of Comell 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 logical place for most
on
• of this is to the southeast, in Precinct 7. Re_oning this area to allow Cornell to concentrate
its growth in the Precinct will help minimi_e urban sprawl. Precinct 7 is well buffered on all
sides by other University lands, so that concentrating growth in this area is not anticipated to
have a deleterious impact on surrounding neighborhoods. 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.
Much University growth will require a relatively close connection to the main campus. To
keep student walking time between classes to a minimum, 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 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 Orchards, pleasant as they may be for the public, are a University teaching and research
facility and subject to those needs and priorities, as determined by the University for its
programs and mission. The University intends to phase out the Orchards in Precinct 7 over
the nest 20 years while developing land it owns in the Town of Lansing for that purpose. The
Orchards, therefore, will remain an amenity for the region although they will no longer be
located in the Town of Ithaca.
•
III. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
RECEIVED AT THE
PUBLIC
HEARINGS HELD OCTOBER 19,
1993
AND NOVEMBER 16,
1993
1. Public Comments Received at the October 19, 1993 Public Hearing
%I
A. Bruce Brittain
1. Traffic should be considered as a P erformance standard for the SLUD
2. The 0.8% assumed annual traffic growth rate is too low for that part of
Ithaca (County traffic counts indicate a 5 to 18 % annual growth rate)
Response: Please see the responses in Section V.C. below.
B. Ellen Harrison
1. Preservation of Route 366 viewshed to Mount Pleasant
2. Request for drawings of possible layout scenarios
Response: Please see the responses in Section V.A. below.
2. Public Comments Received at the November 16, 1993 Public Hearing
No members of the public gave comments at this second public hearing.
IV. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES AND •
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.
•
E'
DRAFT
Response: The SLUD (included in the DGEIS as Appendix 2) should reference the
• GEIS and its recommendations in a way that permits the GEIS to be modified and augmented
over time. It is anticipated that conditions in Precinct 7 will change over time, and any new
studies or information generated by Cornell University and the Town, as well as other
agencies, should be considered at the time a development proposal is submitted to the Town
for approval. The appropriate mechanism for incorporating suggested mitigative measures
into future projects is the Town's site plan review process. Cornell has indicated a
willingness to complete a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) and the Town will
require an LEAF for each future project in order to allow the Town to fully evaluate the
project with regard to the information contained in the DGEIS, FGEIS, and Findings, along
with any additional information, such as traffic counts, which have been generated in the
interim.
2. Comment: Some of the performance standards 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
is 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 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 development 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 SLUD 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.1. 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
•
9
the event that a potentially noisy use is proposed for location next 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 natwral areas and important
wetlands are to be left undeveloped, we are concerned that the need for
creation of wetland mitigation areas are to be determined "at the time an
individual permit is applied for" (page II -76). This project by project
approach to wetlands creation will be far less effective (both
environmentally and economically) than if a "high- side" estimate of
wetland destruction was estimated, and one large wetland was created
(or, even better, a pristine wetland was purchased) to offset the wetland
losses.
Response: Cornell conducted a wetlands inventory for the DGEIS, as illustrated in
Figure 21, Page H -68, in order to identify those areas. Section H (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 in & in'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,
•
10
and high quality wetlands as identified in the natural areas will be protected by a policy of no
sdevelopment, 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
the Precinct has been developed with a degree of population that would use the connection.
®
Rather than an abstract number of people, the majority of whom might or might not use such
a connection, Cornell University has proposed that this become part of a site plan for the
developed area when there is an obvious user group. Cornell has proposed bicycle and
pedestrian paths for Precinct 7, as illustrated in Figure 24 (include ?), Page II -101 of the
DGEIS. The main Cornell campus is generally pedestrian friendly, and there is no reason for
the Town to believe that Cornell will not continue this policy as it develops Precinct 71
Be Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
1. Comment: An avifauna (bird) survey should be conducted in the breeding season
(the DGEIS survey was conducted in February). A breeding season
survey for amphibian and reptilian life would also provide more
information.
Response: While it is true that breeding bird, amphibian, and reptile surveys
would provide additional information, Cornell has already conducted an extensive study of the
area and identified areas of high quality habitat: the Cascadilla Creek Corridor and McGowan
Woods. The University has stated that their policy in developing Precinct 7 is to protect
these areas. The Town will conduct a thorough review of all future development projects to
11
insure that these significant habitat areas are protected. A buffer zone of 75 feet (see
comments B.2. below) will insure that these natural areas are adequately protected, along with
their resident fauna. 0
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 asrea 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.
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 H -38 of the DGEIS (include here ?) Additionally, Beast 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
12
u
r�
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
evaluating potential overall environmental impacts of Precinct 7 development. The first phase
of the GEIS project was essentially completed with the acceptance of the DGEIS by the
Planning Board for public review. The completion of the draft document took over two
years, and the draft evolved as an ongoing process of review and comment by the Town, the
Town's consultant, Cornell University, and Cornell's consultants. The DGEIS is the
culmination of many hours of hard work and negotiation on the part of all involved to
adequately address the issues surrounding rezoning and developing Precinct 7. The Final EIS
will address public comments and will modify those areas in the DGEIS that were found to
be too vague or otherwise unacceptable.
•
The Town has taken the lead role in completing the Final GEIS to insure that overall
development impacts have been adequately addressed. Town staff has been working with the
Planning Board towards this goal. The Planning Board appointed a special committee to
assist staff in drafting the FGEIS for full Board review. The Planning Board will then be
responsible for completing detailed Findings on the GEIS. The Findings statement for this
action, which is to rezone Precinct 7 from a residential to a Special Land Use District or
other institutional zone, if approved, must balance adverse environmental impacts against the
needs and benefits of the action. Reasons supporting approval or disapproval must be given
in the form of facts and conclusions that are derived from the Draft and Final EIS. They
represent the framework upon which future decision - making regarding development of
Precinct 7 will occur. The Town, through the site plan review process and the environmental
13
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. 0
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.
C. Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee
1. Comment: The proposed 30 foot setback from natural areas is
variable setback based upon site specific conditions
considered. If a variable setback is not acceptable,
setback should be established using the "worst case
most sensitive natural area in Precinct 7 coupled wi
project of the highest magnitude of impact,
not appropriate. A
should be
then the non - flexible
scenario" -- the
th a construction
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 at by consideration of wildlife, aesthetic concerns assumed for users of East
Ithaca Recreadonway located alongside Cascadilla Creek, and water quality preservation
concerns. The Planning Board, after much debate, and input from Campus Planning staff, is
14 0
® recommending a 75 foot buffer zone from the established line demarcating the boundary of
the natural areas be adopted, 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 should 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. Existing uses within this 75 foot buffer zone 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 an 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
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):
15
1. Comment: Because of our Highway Permit Authority, (a State Highway Work
Permit will be required for any work in our right of way in this project)
the Department of Transportation is an involved agency for SEQR
purposes. Please correct your GEIS to include our Department as an
Involved Agency.
Response: The New York State Department of Transportation is now listed as an
Involved Agency. The NYS Department of Transportation as an Involved Agency is expected
to be preparing its own Findings Statement with regard to traffic impacts of the proposed
development in Precinct 7, as provided for under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act.
Comment: During our initial review of the DGEIS we note the traffic information
presented in Figure 1A of the Erecutive Summary indicated that the
bulk of the traffic mitigation measures will be done at or near maximum
development. From a capacity, operations, and safety perspective, it
would be preferred that the planned highway improvements be staged
consistent with the development rather than "kick in" all at once when a
significant impact is created.
Response: The Board 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 required
at the time projects are initiated, rather than after completion. Certain road improvements
for the study area which are discussed in the DGEIS have already been completed. These
include improvements to the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road,
realignment of Pine Tree Road at the intersection of Ellis Hollow Road, signalization of this
intersection, and improvement of Judd Falls Road northward to the junction of Maple
Avenue. The NYS DOT recently created an all way stop at the intersection of Route 366 an
Judd Falls Road (South) and is presently evaluating the signalization of Route 366 at Tower
Road and Caldwell Road as part of overall improvements to the corridor. Thus, general
improvements to the road system are an ongoing process, which the.future land use planning
that Cornell and the Town have undertaken in the form of the GEIS can assist better define.
3. Comment: From an operations and safety standpoint, five lanes on Route 366
instead of 4 lanes mentioned on Page 11 -119 would be more desirable
even if capacity analysis showed 4 lanes are sufficient.
4. Comment: Appendix 6, Page 34, states 4 lanes on Route 366 plus intersection
improvements; do these intersection improvements mean left turn lanes
or signalization or both?
16
C,
•
•
Response:
findings regarding
width and number
including intersect
improvements has
The above two concerns are noted. The Final GEIS does not make any
the ultimate width or number of lanes for NYS Route 366. The ultimate
of lanes, and the configuration of other improvements to the road,
ion improvements, should be determined at the time the need for
been identified.
As stated 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
anticipated trip generation data as well as GSF were shown.
Response: The Board concurs with this comment. Figure 2A can be better
understood in light of the information contained in Table 13 of the Travers Associates
Transportation Impact Study Report (Appendix 6, Page 26 -27 of the DGEIS). This Table
relates estimated trip generation to GSF. This information is summarized as follows.
GSF and Estimated Trip Generation for Precinct 7
GSF
100,000
103
501,000
257
2,000,000
19359
31418,000
2,177
4,418,000
2,779
The thresholds for development are more appropriately linked to traffic generation than GSF.
A large parking lot, for example, could generate large amounts of traffic but no additional
GSF, where a library annex might generate few vehicle trips but comprise extensive GSF.
The mitigative measures proposed should be triggered, therefore, by actual trip generation
rates. Determination of the appropriateness of specific mitigative measures is expected to be
based on a number of factors, including the information presented in both the GEIS and the
findings of the pending Northeast Corridor Transportation Study and its implementation over
time.
6. Comment: NYS Department of Transportation policy requires that the developer
pay for all highway work to maintain existing capacity, operational and
safety characteristics of the highway. Basically, any adverse impact on
the highway mast be mitigated at the developer's expense.
17
Response: The Department of Transportation is considered an Involved Agency
under SEQRA. This FGEIS 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 policy also states that development
impacts must be based on full build -out on opening day so that the
existing capacity, operational and safety characteristics of the highway
are maintained as the highway would have operated absent the new
development. However, in this case, the Depamnent would possibly be
agreeable to a phased mitigation plan, mutually agreed upon by the
Department, Cornell University, and the Town of Ithaca.
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 parties 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 (the Ithaca area
Metropolitan Planning Organization or MPO) of which all parties are members.
DRAFT
• V. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC
A. Ellen Harrison
1. Comment: It seems to me that it is quite a challenge to consider an EIS for a
development program that might range from 296,000 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 develop
Precinct 7 with floor area ratio (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
an 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 foram (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
• they relate to the project under review. If the environmental impacts of a proposal are found
19
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 mak
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 part of the University. But since no SL1UD 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
Town Board's approval of the SLUM
20
t
E7
C7
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 GEIS 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 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
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
21
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,
agricultural, and low density Waal 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 (see next page) 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. Stormwa.ter 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 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 ninoff 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 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 storrnwater management
22
•
w
C
I �
G
Un
L O7
a O C
n -'
CL
O E
m m F - LL. Uo)
II 11 11 II 11
L�g
z`
i
U
U
F
L
Q�
U
U
s
. v
v
Li
0
C
O
a 0
N
O O
U
oQ
O
O U
' o
o► U
N 0
U p
♦ i . 0�
23
Gome Form Rd.
U7
U
U
F
0
I
J
z
�o
U
ro
R
wx
Ql
y
L
U
ro
.-r
'II
ro
u
N
ro
U
N
c
0
L
ro
L
N
co
c
,,
.-1
a
E
ro
d
L
ro
w
00
Q)
L
S�
c
,4
0
>r
U
ro
w
0
C
O
L
ro
u
0
v
>r
c
oa
w
plan presented in the GEIS will help alleviate runoff from this area which presently contains
pesticides, fertilizers, and sediment. 0
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 1I -38: include ?). Section II.B.1.3.b. (Page U -42), Mitigating
Measures for Surface Water, include the following measures to 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 devices 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 in impermeable surfaces was addressed in both the DGEIS and subsequent Stearns
and Wheler report (Appendix Section II.B.I.a. 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 New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation has categorized the geology of Precinct 7 as being a low yield
aquifer characterized by bedrock overlain by glacial till, both of 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
24
impervious surfaces in Precinct 7 at the full build scenario would represent less than a one
is 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. Ambient water quality standards are expected to be met by this
project with the proposed controls.
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 for 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 ).
Response: Cornell University recognized that the DGEIS did not adequately address these
issues, and contracted with a consulting firm, Stearns and Wheler (see Appendix J 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 10 percent with the proposed controls if a full build
scenario were to occur (see Table 4 of the Stearns and Wheler report). 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 surfaces 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 in the proper perspective.
25
r . •
Not far downstream of Precinct 7, the stream becomes a series of waterfalls through very
steep topography. Conditions of elevated temperature and oxygen - deprivation are essentially
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 DGEIS.(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 199: ?.
Determining the most desirable location of such a link also involves study beyond the
scope of the DGEIS: such a link should be designed in a manner that it serves not only
Precinct 7, but those portions of the University north and west of precinct 7 and NYS Route
366.
10, 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 riot 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.
26
• Bicycle and pedestrian needs of the entire area are also expected to be addressed in
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
0
•
Response: The DGEIS proposes a Precinct 7 road network that is not likely to
encourage through traffic. Given the conceptual design provided in the DGEIS (Fig. �J 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 DGEIS traffic on Game Farm Road between NYS Route 366 and
Stevenson and Ellis Hollow Roads (Vol.I Fig. 25, App. 6, Figs. 5a & 6a) is estimated to
account for between 3 % and 5% of overall traffic to and from the University. 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 G/EIS 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.
12. 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
M
..
TD AF T
issue that is beyond the scope of the GEIS. Parking for facilities in Precinct 7 will be located
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 pan 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 and Route
366 (the proposed SLUD 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). 0
140 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: Please see the response to Section N.C., Comment 1.
15, Comment: 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 made a commitment to preserve this area from
0
IN
AFT
• development. Additionally, a 75 foot buffer zone will be required to protect the natural areas
and these steeply sloped areas from the impacts of increased runoff from development. The
best management practices for construction as outlined in Section I.F.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 uses 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
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
29
the University's ownership.
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.13.2
a. and b. (Pages H- 31 -39), respectively. Possible visual and noise impacts are discussed in
Section II, J.2.a. and d. (Pages II -182 -187), 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 H -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 1I489). 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.
30
r1
n
.7
FTRII
® Response: The DGEIS examines a range of potential development. Minimum and
maximum degrees of development were studied. Section III discusses the alternative
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 proposed SLUD specifies that total ground coverage of a site be
no more than 25 percent, and that the total maximum coverage of a site by structures, road
pavement, parking lots, and pedestrian area pavements be no more than 45% of a site.
r.
u
The no -action alternative was also considered
would still allow the University to develop under the
Both the Town and the University recognize that the
Cornell campus, yet this is the current zoning. It is i
were to remain as R -30, institutional uses would still
Overall plans and impacts would not be addressed in
the land remain as R -30. The GEIS has allowed the
overall impacts of development of Precinct 71
Be Barbara L. Peckarsky
(see Section III, Page III -7), which
constraints imposed by R -30 zoning.
R -30 zoning is inappropriate for the
mportant to consider that if Precinct
be permitted, as well as residential uses.
such a comprehensive manner should
Town and the University to assess
1. 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
31
1 '
offered next during the 1995 spring semester.
L
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 issues in a general sense
in Section U.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
retention basins are also proposed, with general locations as shown in Figure 19 (Page 1I -48)
of the DGEIS. Two studies were made by Ichthyological Associates to provide baseline data
on water quality and the stream biota. Cornell had a consultant, Stearns and Wheler, quantify
stream impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of Cornell'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 p rotect 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
C
32
�.J
•
DR A FT
effectively regulating the outflow that will reach the Cree . esigners
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.
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 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 water 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 carefully evaluate all available data
in the design and review of development proposals for Precinct 7, not limited to the
information presented in the GEIS.
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
33
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.
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.
34
kept high in Forest Home
However, LOS is a
of traffic, not a measure
nI; a high LOS is likely to
C�
•
® 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.
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
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. 11- 183)In 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 Home 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
35
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 rather 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
analysis indicates that the signalized intersection with maximum development with the 300
additional vehicles would have a LOS of C rather than B.
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- camplas 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. 1122-23 of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan).
Response: The discussion of the Cornell University Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program in the document (pp. H403 - U -106) appears to be reasonably
accurate in its assessment of the effects of the program. 0
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 nei €;hborhoods 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
36
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
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 - include 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 INYS 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
• which has
the rate it
GSF will
the GEIS
has underesti
averaged 3%
has been, the
be reached in
predicts.
mated Cornell's historic annual growth rate,
per year. If the university continues to grow at
maximum expected development of 4,368,000
10 or 11 years, not in the 20 or 30 years that
Response: The development program outlined in the DGEIS 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.
•
37
Response: Please see Response (V)B.1 above.
12. Comment: The GEIS neglected to consider retaining the area as a producing apple
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 DGEIS does address the retention of the area as an orchard, both in
the DGEIS 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 GELS 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 DGEIS 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
M
•
•
DRAFT
"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.
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.
916
' Other Business
•
n
TOWN OF ITHACA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Robert L. Kenerson, Chair
DATE: March 15, 1994
RE: Planning Board Member Project Assignments
As we discussed at a Planning Board meeting several weeks ago, it would be helpful
members of the Planning Board to become more involved in projects earlier in the review
process. For many projects, we do not get to pass judgement until after all the groundwork
has been completed by staff for our approval. The sketch plan phase helps to give applicants
informal feedback from the Board, but often much time elapses between the sketch plan and
preliminary phases, during which staff and applicant discuss the project independently of the
Board. Getting Board members more involved in the sketch plan and preliminary phases of
the process would make us a more pro -active Board. This need not involve significant
additional time on the part of the Board. For the FGEIS, Candace and Steve met with
Planning Staff for about 2 hours once per week for a period of three weeks. Most projects
will require significantly Iess time over a longer time period.
I propose that Board Member project assignments be made using a team approach,
using our official Town of Ithaca Roster (attached). Since Steve and Candace were involved
in the FGEIS, the next two Board Members on the list are Herb and Virginia. The next
project on our agenda is Sanctuary Woods, and I propose that these two Board Members take
on this project. Staff can send you the appropriate information as it becomes available, and
consult with you on appropriate times to meet to discuss the project as fits everyone's
schedules. The next two Board Members on the list are Eva and Jim. One of the next items
of note on our agenda is the Ithacare site plan. I propose that they take on this project.
For future project assignments, we can
begin
with myself, at
the top of the roster.
We can evaluate this system in a few month's
time
to see how it is
working. I would
appreciate feedback from Board Members and
staff
on this system.
PC: Planning and Engineering Staff
4
Exhibit #6
3/15/94 Minutes
' M
TOWN OF ITHACA ROSTER
® UPDAT" 2/11/94
® TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
John G. Whitcomb 233 Troy Road (H) 273 -7322
Town Supervisor (0) 255 -2555
FAX 255 -9499
Catherine Valentino 110 Eastern Heights Drive (H) 272 -5214
Deputy Town Supervisor (o) 272 -4108
David L. Klein 306 Winthrop Drive (H) 257 -3111
(0) 1- 734 -297:
FAX 1- 734 -32201
Edward Conley 121 Whitetail Drive (H) 277 -4559
Ellen Z. Harrison 115 E. Upland Road (0) 255 -8576
(H) 257 -5391
Karl J. Niklas 115 Vera Circle (0) 255 -8727
FAX 255 -5407
Carolyn J. Grigorov 126 Snyder Hill Road (H) 273 -6372
(0) 273 -5142
- -- -FAX -272 -3063
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Robert L. Kenerson, Chair
LZ Stephen D. Smith, Vice Chair
.Candace E. Cornell
C. Herbert Finch
3
V
�^ Virginia C. Langhans
1465 Mecklenburg Road
537 Warren Road
1456 Hanshaw Road
904 Coddington Road
Ill Halcyon Hill Road
(H) 273 -9208
(H)
257
-2745
(0)
255
-0803
(H) 257 -6220
(H) 273 -8706
(0) 255 -3530
Fax 255 -9524
(H) 257 -1864
Eva B. Hoffmann 4 Sugarbush Lane (H) 273 -2389
James S. Ainslie 245 Hayts Road (H) 272 -2819
n
20
----------------------------------------
•