HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CAC-1998CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes of meeting of January 12, 1998
Present: Martin Violette (Chair), Dan Hoffman, Derek Keil, Paul Salon,
Betsy Darlington, Barbara Ebert (EMC Liaison); Greg Thomas (guest)
Martin opened the meeting at 7:30 PM.
I. Minutes for Dec. were approved unanimously.
2. Martin reported on the EAF committee's recommendations for three
variance requests: at 409 Elmwood Ave. (ok), 717 E. Buffalo St. (ok), 317
Dryden Rd. (not ok), and gave the reasons.
3. Membership: Paul introduced Greg Thomas whom he had asked to come to the
meeting, to see if he might like to be a candidate for one of the openings.
(He decided, by the end of the meeting, to apply.) Greg is an engineer in
the heating industry, and in recent years has been heavily involved with
Promoting energy conservation. He started a non - profit in Syracuse for
this purpose, and now works as a consultant. Currently, his job primarily
is organizing conferences on energy conservation, "green" buildings, etc.
He has a lot of interaction with the EPA, DOA, various State offices, and
major utilities.
Various people agreed to continue trying to reach certain promising
prospects.
Martin was unclear, for sure, who had been reappointed by the Mayor.
4• Lake Source Cooling: The response to the CAC's question about sufficient
backup has continued to be a serious concern. Martin talked at length with
Michael Barylski at the DEC who tried to reassure him that the DEC would be
addressing our concerns during the permitting process. Barbara said that
the EMC is concerned that the rules by which the system would be shut down
or for the self - monitoring (another sticky issue!) will be developed after
the permits are issued. This will exclude the public from the process.
Martin said that the only thing we can do, at this point, is urge the DEC
to take a firm position re monitoring and shutdown. Barbara told us that
Cornell has applied to the EPA to exceed emission limits required by the
Clean Air Act, pleading "economic hardship." (For their #8 boiler, I
think.) Betsy had drafted a possible letter to send to the DEC, and perhaps
to the newspapers and Cornell. We reviewed th and made various changes.
Greg said that it would be prohibitively expensive to have a backup system
in place, but what was needed was a plan and a budget for getting one in
place expeditiously, should the LSC system had to be shut down. It was
agreed to mention the self - monitoring issue in the letter, too. Martin
will redraft the letter and e -mail it to everyone. Dan noted that his law
firm has been approached by an opponent of the project. The firm hasn't
reached a decision yet, but Dan wanted us to know of this potential
conflict of interest, hence his non - involvement in the discussion tonight.
5. CEQR vs. SEQR: Betsy had gone through (rather quickly) the City's Type I
list to see what might be in conflict with the State's "new" Type 1I list.
According to some interpretations, the City cannot have anything on the
former that is on the latter. Dan said that the issue won't be resolved
until the courts settle it. In Betsy's review, she did not find a great
many conflicts, but some were critical, esp. our so- called "gorge
ordinance," the requirement that there be environmental review of any
project within 100' of certain special resources (gorges, wetlands, flood
plains, historic resources, etc.). Anything in the State's Type II list
that fell into that zone could not receive env. review (according to some).
In addition, our Type I list includes any construction of public
institutions, but the State's II list includes any nonresidential structure
under 4000 s. f., or expansion of an educ. institution under 10,000 s.f.
The City's required review for removal of 1/2 acre or more of vegetation
would not apply if such removal was in connection with "best forest
management" practices, so that item seems safe. The City also provides for
env. review for any action which exceeds 25% of any threshold that's in or
contiguous to parkland, rec. area or designated open space, or site on the
Historic register. Anything on the State's II list that conflicted with
this would prevent the City from being able to conduct an environmental
review of the proposal.
Betsy suggested that we recommend that Common Council start work on a
conservation overlay zone ordinance to cover the special City resources
which now seem to be unprotected. Martin will talk to Rick Eckstrom and Jon
Meigs, to see if they can come to our next meeting.
6. Barbara said that the EMC will be hosting the annual conference of the
NYS Association of EMC's and CAC's (to which we do not belong), from Sept.
11 -13, and she asked if we would like to co- sponsor it-- meaning money or
volunteers, primarily. Betsy said that the CAC doesn't even have a budget
and so $ help would be out. Martin said we could probably drum up some
volunteer help, however.
8:45 Meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Betsy Darlington
NEXT MEETING: FEB. 9, 1998 , 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -5690
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Telephone: 607/274 -6508 Fax: 607/272 -7348
To: Martin Violette, Chair Date: 11 March, 1998
Conservation Advisory Council
&Woj,• l:�
From: Richard L. Eckstrom, uilding Commissioner
Re: SEQR/CEQR Study
Attached is a study that I referred to at your council's March meeting. Those present
expressed interest in obtaining a copy. By copy of this memo, I'm sending one to each
member of the council as well. This study was commissioned by the planning
department. The study includes a suggested list of amendments to make the city
regulations conform with the state rules.
There was also interest in re- examining a 1988 study of proposed Conservation Overlay
Zones (COZ) as an alternative protection method to amplifying the state rules to
provide gorge protection. Apparently, the Council had worked on this in 1988 and may
have even been an alternate to the CEQR regulations that are now on the books.
I have located the 1988 information and have attached the text. If members of the
Council would like to look at the COZ map it is in the planning department map file
R04, map 48.
I enjoyed talking with those in attendance at the meeting, and would appreciate any
momentum that your committee could add to the process of deciding how to handle the
differences between these regulations.
Attachments
cc: Alan J. Cohen, Mayor
Conservation Advisory Council
V CAC Liaisons
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification."
t�
Memo to: Planning Board and Dept
Cornell University
Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
CAC members
BPW, DPW
Building Dept.
From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee
Re: EAF for Amendment to City Zoning Ordinance, establishing a U -1 Zone
Date: March 10, 1998
Recommendation: We agree with a negative declaration, provided that the addition of
1053 parking spaces on 8 acres of land (unknown where this would be) is excluded from the
analysis, and provided that the area around the western portion of Beebe Lake either be
designated no- build, or have a maximum height of 30 feet.
If ever Cornell's Transportation Demand Managment Program (TDMP) is deemed
inadequate and such additional parking deemed necessary, a new review should be done of
potential impacts. Cornell's TDMP is a good way to reduce demand, and should serve as a
model for other large employers in the City, including City Hall.
Comments:
1. The map showing the proposed U -1 Zone, and the map showing the Project Area do not
match. Notably absent from the latter are the areas around Beebe Lake, and between campus
and Oak Ave. (part of upper Cascadilla Cr.).
2. The proposed no -build zones shown on the U -1 map would provide important protections
for the gorges.
3. We question the wisdom of allowing 75' and 50' buildings around much of Beebe Lake
and upper Fall Creek. We propose these two areas either for inclusion in the no -build zone,
or a lowering to a 30' height limitation. The area around Beebe Lake is scenically one of
the most beautiful- -and most viewed - -on campus, and tall buildings would have a significant
impact on this.
4. In Part III, #2 refers to Fall Creek and Cascadilla Creek "Critical environmental Areas."
Unfortunately, no such areas have ever been designated by the City and State, and these
areas therefore do not enjoy as much protection as they should.
Memo to: Common Council and Mayor
Planning Board
Planning Director
City Attorney
From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee
Re: EAF for the Alienation of SW Park and Designation of Substitute Park Land
Date: March 19, 1998
1. The EAF as written wavers between treating "the proposed action" merely as the alienation of SW
Park/designation of substitute park land, and approaching it more comprehensively, to include future uses
of the properties in question. We suggest a consistent approach: evaluating only the alienation/substitution
(as has been done in parts of the EAF), and leaving the evaluation of actions that could involve new, future
uses for subsequent environmental review.
If the intent is to include in the scope of this review any possible rezoning and/or commitment to
particular future uses (e.g., commercial), then a much more extensive analysis is needed before making a
determination of significance.
If the intent is to restrict this review to the decision to alienate and designate substitute parkland,
with no assumptions being made regarding future uses of the alienated land, the following changes should
be made in the EAF:
(a) Items #22 (c) and (d) in Part I state that the "proposed use" is not consistent with present
zoning, and that the future zoning "will be commercial." These statements should be deleted. If the
proposed action being reviewed here is merely alienation/ substitution, then there is no "proposed use" for
the current SW Park (and the intended use of the substitute land as park is not necessarily inconsistent with
the Floodway zoning now applied to the property). Both questions should be answered, "Unknown."
(b) Similarly, under B -1 -c, the amount of "project acreage to remain undeveloped," should be
answered "unknown; at least 47 acres," rather than "47 acres." This will confirm that the review is limited
to alienation and substitution, and that all that can be said at this time is that the substitute parkland will
remain undeveloped; the status of the alienated parkland depends on future land use decisions, subject to
additional environmental review.
The current answer assumes that all of the current SW Park will be developed. In fact, this 58 -acre
parcel is not without some significant environmental features, most notably wetlands, mature forest, and
remnants of the very special old flood plain forest, along the eastern border and possibly the southern
border. A decision to allow any or all of these to be modified or removed for development would require
much greater analysis prior to making a determination of significance.
2. In Part I, # 15, the estimated total number of acres of wetland appears to be far too small. Wetlands
in SW Park alone appear to have more than 10 acres. In addition, the substitute parklands include
substantial wetlands.
3. Item #13, in Part II, is answered too simplistically. In terms of quality of the two parcels of land,
we agree that the substitute parcel would be superior, but in terms of quantity, it is 11 acres smaller (as now
drawn). Furthermore, the answer does not acknowledge that the current SW Park has any significant
natural features, yet it clearly does. (See item 1 (b), above.)
We recommend that the answer to item #13 acknowledge the fact that loss of parkland status will
increase the possibility that any or all of the. parcel's important environmental features and open space
attributes could be lost to development (rather than note only the "positive benefit" of the substitution). In
the attachment, the reviewer could elaborate on the features of the current SW park and should note that
this EAF is restricted to alienation alone; any decision on actual future land use would be subject to further
environmental review, taking into account the attributes of (the former) $W Park and how they should be
treated, thus mitigating any concern at this time.
4. Part II, #19: Public controversy should be checked, "Yes," and put in the "small -to- moderate"
column.
5. The map provided is not adequate. It doesn't show the levee or the 100 -year flood plain line. A
copy of the current zoning map, with the correct boundaries of the proposed parkland drawn on, would be
easier to interpret.
6. Regarding the substitute parklands, we recommend that the boundaries be modified as follows.
Adding more land to the substitute park will make its size more comparable to what is being alienated, and
will make the new park much more viable as a public space. This is more urgent than adding funds to the
operating budgets of other parks. No more undeveloped land is being "made," and we should not let this
opportunity to create the most attractive possible park/natural area slip by (especially since land values are
probably at the lowest they will be for a long time to come).
(a) All of the land that the City has already acquired in the area should be included in the substitute
package; this will add the remainder of the so- called 11SW -4" parcel (possibly 10 acres ?), southerly along
the old railroad embankment (along which the proposed bike path will run).
(b) Additional land (or development rights) between the proposed 1985 southern boundary of the
substitute park and Route 13 should be acquired, to ensure that the park will be adequately buffered from
any adjacent commercial uses.
(c) A corridor or right -of -way should be obtained linking the substitute park with Route 13. This is
critical in order to provide City residents (and others) with adequate access to the park, particularly the
portion of the park south of the Inlet. Without the corridor (and some provision for parking), the only
access will be on foot or by bicycle; given the location off Route 13, at the end of a busy commercial strip
without sidewalks, pedestrian access will not be a reasonable option for the vast majority.
_ (d) A small area of land bounded by the old railroad embankment, Cayuga Inlet and W. Buttermilk
Falls Road should be acquired either by the City or the Town, as this will provide additional access along
the Inlet, a direct link to land owned by NYS as part of Buttermilk Falls State Park and space for a potential
bike /pedestrian path connecting to W. Buttermilk Falls Road.
CONCLUSION: The EAF should be corrected as noted above, prior to making a determination of
significance. Consideration should be given to expanding the boundaries of the substitute parkland as
recommended. If these changes are made, the Conservation Advisory Council's EAF subcommittee will
recommend a negative declaration for the alienation of Southwest Park and designation of substitute
parkland.
Conservation Advisory Council
City of Ithaca
Memo to: Common Council and Mayor
Copy to: Planning Board
Planning Department
City Attorney
CAC
From: Conservation Advisory Council's Environmental Review
Subcommittee (Darlington, Gerard, Keil, Violette)
Subject: EAF Reviews for
(1) Rezoning of MH -1 Area
(2) Adoption of Southwest Area Land Use Plan
Date: April 13, 1998
1. EAF, Proposed Rezoning of MR-1 (mobile home) Area
Comments: See NOTE below.
Recommendation: Positive declaration.
2. EAF, Adoption of Southwest Area Land Use Plan
Comments:
In considering this matter, we have examined the LEAF prepared for the proposed action (adoption of a
land use plan for the Southwest area of the City), as well as the Southwest Area Land Use Study ( SALUS),
with its 4/98 Addendum, the underlying document on which the proposed plan is based.
Initially, we note that, in its present form, the SALUS is little more than a general outline. It does not
contain the level of detail or kinds of information that would be needed to support a serious environmental
review of the proposed plan and/or its elements.
Furthermore, the SALUS lacks any serious discussion of alternatives the proposed plan or its compo-
nents. And there has been virtually no public discussion of the SALUS or the proposed plan until this
month.
We cannot agree with the suggestion that all serious environmental review be deferred until there are
specific proposals for development. This is clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of State and local envi-
ronmental review laws. Land use plans tend to commit the City to a certain course of action. Zoning
designations allow certain types of development "as of right," subject only to possible site plan modifica-
tions. Policy makers must consider the environmental impact of these major actions as early as possible in
the process. To do that, information far beyond that contained in the SALUS or the LEAF is needed.
The scope of the plan, the size of the area affected, and the implications for the community all indicate
that the proposed Southwest plan and its major components are likely to have a significant impact. With-
out more information, it is impossible to quantify this potential 'impact. We suggest one of the following
actions:
(a) Suspend the environmental review and approval process; revise or supplement the SALUS so that it
contains adequate information upon which to base a determination of significance; include additional
opportunities for public comment in this process; or
(b) Prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed plan (before approving any of
the major components of the plan).
In examining the LEAF responses to the questions in Part 2, we see that 14 of the 19 categories have
positive responses (i.e.., an impact is possible). In very few of these categories has the reviewer indicated
that the potential impact could be reduced by a change in the project. A response this dramatic should be
sufficient, on its own, to trigger further environmental review.
However, we feel that not all of the Part 2 responses are accurate. Below are our suggestions for modi-
fication of Part 2. Numbers correspond to categories Part 2. If these changes are made, 16 of 19 categories
in Part 2 will include positive responses.
Impact on Land
1. Physical change.
Construction on land where depth of water table is less than 3 feet - should be checked, as "Potentially
large impact'
that will continue for more than one year; - should be checked, as "Potentially large
impact"
Clearcutting or removal of vegetation... - should be checked, as "Potentially large impact"
Impact on Water
4. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? - should be checked "Yes"
Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. - should be checked, as "Potentially large impact"
5. Will project affect any non - protected ... water? Fall Creek... Cayuga Inlet, etc. - change from "Small
to Moderate" to "Potentially large impact' Surface or groundwater quality... Project will adversely affect groundwater. - should be checked,
as "Potentially large impact"
Drainage
7. Will project alter drainage flow...
Other impacts.
- add: "Proposed development will require large parking lots" Should be checked, as "Potentially
large impact
Plants & Animals
10. Will project affect non - threatened... species?
Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
- change from "Small to Moderate" to "Potential large impact"
Visual Impact
11. Will the project affect views... - All examples should be checked, as "Potentially large impact"
Transportation
14. Will there be effect to existing transportation systems?
Alteration of present patterns:.. - Change from "Small to Moderate" to "Potentially large impact"
Project will result in truck traffic... - Change from "Small to Moderate" to "Potentially large impact"
Quality of Daily Life
16. Will there be objectionable odors...
Odors will occur routinely... - Change from "Small to Moderate" to "Potentially large impact"
Project will produce operating noise...- Change from "Small to Moderate" to "Potentially large
impact"
Growth & Character
18. Will project affect the character of existing community?
The municipal budgets for capital expenditures will increase by more than 5% per year...
- Should be checked, as "Potentially large impact" (cost of infrastructure, expanded services, etc.)
When the magnitude of a potential impact is uncertain, the reviewer is instructed (by the LEAF) to
check the "Potential large impact' response. With the absence of information in this case, many of the
impacts must be viewed as uncertain.
The comments included in Part 3 of the LEAF are not responsive to the instructions for that part. Miti-
gating measures are not discussed, and the guidelines for determining the "importance" of each impact
(e.g.., probability, duration, irreversibility) are not followed. Thus, it is not possible to make a reasonable
determination of significance. (It should be noted that the CAC believes that more than a dozen additional
"potential large impacts" should be identified, and analyzed in Part 3.)
RECOMIIMNDATION: Based on the scope of this action, the multiple, identified, potentially large
impacts, the lack of detailed information, and the desirability of considering alternatives, we strongly rec-
ommend a positive declaration of adverse environmental impact for the proposed Southwest land use
plan, and the pre aration of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under SEQR 617.10.
The regulations [�617.10(a)(4)) call for a GEIS when considering:
"an entire program or plan having wide application or restricting the range of future alternative
policies or projects, including new or significant changes to existing land use plans, development
plans, zoning regulations or agency comprehensive resource management plans."
The preparation of such a GEIS would require greater definition of the individual steps outlined broadly in
the SALUS, presentation of alternatives, and more public discussion and input, which would assist in cre-
ating a plan which would provide maximum public benefit. This is justified by the far - reaching impacts
the development of this area will have. Every effort should be made to ensure that these impacts will be
beneficial.
NOTE: Finally, it is also important that the individual components of the proposed plan, such as the above
proposed rezoning of the "Old City Dump ", not be acted upon in isolation (i.e.., prior to adoption of the
overall land use plan) or prematurely (i.e.., prior to completion of environmental review for the entire plan).
In fact, such segmentation is not consistent with the spirit of the SEQR. (For this reason we have recom-
mended a positive declaration of environmental impact in the case of the proposed rezoning of the MH -1
area, at least pending the completion of a GEIS.)
q SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SOUTHWEST LAND USE PLAN
The CAC has made comments on the SALUS in the past. We note that some of our concerns have been
addressed in general ways in the 4/98 Addendum to the SALUS. However, several aspects of the SALUS
remain problematic, in our opinion.
1. The expansion of the Cherry Street Industrial Park could be better designed to interact with other
SALUS and SALUS - related areas. It is not desirable to continue industrial development along the inlet,
and type of development would be better confined to an area east of the railway (as part of it is now pro-
posed to be), or could be separated from the Inlet with a wider buffer zone than appears to be required by
the SALUS.
2. The proposed road system should be described more precisely (how many lanes, limited or unlimited
access, etc.). It is unclear whether the City wants to see the east -west roadway linked to West Hill, or
whether the indicated connection is merely the remnant of an long -ago Town plan. The environmental
impacts of any new road corridors such as these will be significant, in our opinion, and this vital part of the
proposed plan should be described "yip front'. The impacts of the east -west roadway would be substan-
tially reduced by ending it east of the railway tracks.
3. One of the most important aspects of the proposed plan, and one which we think needs some further
thought, is the (continued) designation of the area across from Buttermilk Park as an unrestricted commer-
cial zone (i.e.., B -5). This area is part of the "viewshed" from Buttermilk and is immediately adjacent to
the substitute parkland. It could play a significant role in determining the nature of the entire southern
"gateway" to the City. Judging by public opinion already expressed, this part of the proposed plan will be
very controversial.
4. Converting an area of well over 100 acres into a single -use zone, namely, heavy commercial, is likely to
result in the construction of very large buildings and very large parking areas. As we have stated before,
residential or mixed -use development is likely to be far more flexible and adaptable to the natural envi-
ronment, allowing for the retention of more vegetation and unpaved areas. This would mean less impact on
drainage, runoff, plant and animal species, etc. We recommend continued investigation of mixed -use
development.
If heavy commercial use on this scale is the goal of the proposed plan, then the impact of paving over
much of the remaining flood plain area needs to be examined. The City should establish a limit to the
amount of paved surface in this area, and steps required to mitigate the effect of paved parking lots on
runoff. The record so far is not good: in spite of repeated recommendations on increasing vegetative areas
in proposed parking lots in the developed Route 13 corridor, very little has actually been accomplished.
5. Rather than merely leaving a "buffer" of unspecified width at the south end of the current Southwest
Park, we suggest that the City consider leaving the (unfilled) southern half of the parcel (now woods and
wetlands) as a natural area. This would accomplish the buffering function, would retain the benefits of the
wetlands and obviate the need to replace them, and would be a valuable addition to the newly - acquired
natural area immediately adjacent, to the south. It would also enhance the Black Diamond Trail running
along the levee.
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Meeting
Present: Derek Keil, Betsy Darlington, Martin Violette (Chair), Paul Salon, Dan Hoffman,
Barbara Ebert (EMC Liaison)
1. EAF's: Martin reported on the subcommittee's favorable recommendation regarding
the EAF we had received regarding revisions to subdivision regulations. One correction will
be needed, as noted in the report. We then discussed the use of "conditional" and
"preliminary," and agreed that the document needs to define the former, and make sure that,
throughout the document, each term is used consistently and as intended. We all agreed that
our "neg. dec." for the changes should be conditioned on the CAC reviewing EAF's for
minor as well as major subdivisions. Dan pointed out that, in some of the City's sensitive
areas, a minor subdivision could have some significant impacts, and environmental review
would be important.
2. Timing of receipt of EAF's: We discussed the growing problem with the EAF's we
receive. Frequently, we receive them just a couple of days prior to our meeting, or, even
worse, few days before a decision will be made by the lead agency, and this date is prior to
our meeting. This essentially eliminates the possibility of our reviewing the EAF at all, let
alone in a timely manner. It was agreed that Betsy would send a memo to all departments,
reminding them of our need to receive EAF's at least a week prior to our meeting. Betsy
said that a few years ago, this had all been worked out with the departments, but somehow
the system had broken down. Martin felt that the City's rush to streamline everything had
been partly responsible for this. It was agreed that everything needs to be coordinated
between City Hall departments, so that each reviewing body can, in fact, review a given
action.
3. Conservation Overlay Zoning: Some time ago, the Building Commissioner, Rick
Eckstrom, discussed with us the problem that has arisen with the new SEQR regs.,
particularly in reference to actions within the areas around the gorges that the CEQR regs.
had protected. He suggested that we make a recommendation to Common Council for some
overlay zoning, to reinstate these important safeguards.
In response, the CAC discussed and then unanimously voted for a resolution to
Common Council, recommending that the City adopt conservation overlay zoning, to protect
the City's special natural resources.
4. __Membership: The CAC now has just 7 members (it should have 9), and after tonight,
will have only 6, as Martin is moving to VA. Then in August, Derek moves to New Haven,
taking us down to just 5. Martin has repeatedly asked the Mayor to appoint Greg Thomas to
the CAC, and he fully intends to do so, but keeps not getting around to it. Greg is highly
qualified, and would serve the City well. Everyone expressed dismay over the long delay in
making this appointment.
We also discussed other possibilities for recruitment, and Paul agreed to put
something into the Greenstar newsletter, asking for applicants. Martin will talk to someone
he thinks would be a good possibility, and Betsy will continue to pursue other leads.
With Martin gone, Derek (age 16!) will take over as Chair until he leaves in August.
Memo to: Common Council, Mayor
Planning Board
Building Commissioner Rick Eckstrom
From: Conservation Advisory Council
Re: SEQR changes and Conservation Overlay Zoning Resolution
Date: May 12, 1998
. As you are undoubtedly aware, recent changes in the State's Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA) effectively eliminated some of the protections that Common Council had enacted for
certain environmentally sensitive areas in the City, such as the gorges. Because of this, the
Conservation Advisory Council is proposing that the City adopt Conservation Overlay Zoning (COZ)
in order to better protect such areas. The Building Commissioner has told the CAC that, without
such protection, his hands are tied when certain types of projects are proposed in one of the sensitive
areas.
The purpose of COZ is to give added protection to sensitive areas, without changing the
underlying zoning. Many municipalities have enacted such legislation. Most COZ ordinances
establish design or site plan guidelines and, require special review for proposed actions. In 1988, after
working on a COZ proposal for nearly a year, the CAC presented it for the City's consideration. It
then died. Copies are available from Rick Eckstrom. The map.to go with it is filed in the Planning
Dept. in R04- -Map 48. These should be helpful in drafting legislation.
At the CAC meeting on May 11, 1998, the CAC passed the following resolution
unanimously.
RESOLUTION
to Common Council and the Planning Board
Whereas, the City's waterways, wetlands, and woodlands are Ithaca's most sensitive and valuable
natural resources; and
Whereas, Conservation Overlay Zoning (COZ) would help protect the water quality of the various
creeks in the City, and Cayuga Lake, into which they flow; and
Whereas, COZ would help minimize excessive increases in water volume flowing through the creeks,
and consequent erosion of their banks, siltation of the streams and lake, loss of riparian (streambank)
vegetation, and loss of habitat for fish and other wildlife; and
Whereas, COZ would help protect land in the City from increases in periodic flooding due to the
removal of riparian vegetation, dredging, filling, damming, or channelization; and
Whereas, COZ would help prevent degradation or loss of wetlands; and
Whereas , COZ would help safeguard scenic views and vistas from and to the lakes, wetlands, creeks,
and gorges; and
Whereas, COZ would help protect plant and wildlife habitat, and enhance the recreational - -and hence,
tourism -- values of these important places; therefore be it
Resolved, that the Conservation Advisory Council urges Common Council and the Planning Board to
enact comprehensive Conservation Overlay Zoning to protect the City's significant natural resources;
and further be it
Resolved, that the Conservation Advisory Council recommends that Common Council and the
Planning Board utilize the document and map prepared by the CAC in 1988, in drafting a COZ
ordinance.
Memo to: Common Council and Mayor
Planning Board
Cc: City Attorney
Building Dept.
From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee
Re: Subdivision Revisions
Date: May 12, 1998
Recommendation: Negative declaration, provided the CAC would still review the EAF's
for both major and minor subdivisions.
Comments:
1. Two typos must be corrected, in order for the meaning to be clear. Under 290 -1 -E,
it should read "...Any subdivision ...resulting in two or more new buildable lots."
Similarly, under 290 -1 -G, it should read, "...Any subdivision... resulting in a maximum of
one new buildable lot[s]."
2. "Conditional" and "preliminary" are not always distinguished from each other. We
found this very confusing. The former should be defined, and the document should be
checked to make sure the two terms are used as intended.
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes for 7/13/98
Present: Betsy Darlington, Guy Gerard, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Derek Kyle
1. Minutes for June meeting will be provided for August meeting by D. Hoffman
2. EAF reviews:
A. Peter Penniman - 106 Grandview Place. We agreed to approve on the
condition of no subdivision of residence - must remain a single residence.
B. Zoning change ordinance regarding the Accessory Apartment Ordinance and
Standards for Special Permits. We agree neg. dec.
C. Proposed changes regarding awnings and canopies. Dan Hoffman thought
it might make it more difficult to install illuminated marquees. Agreed neg. dec.
D. SDRP for Autozone - Agreed recommend pos dec requiring DEIS.
Our reasoning includes the following:
- Neighboring houses to the east will be strongly affected by current plan. Five Pine
trees are not an adequate buffer for vegetation removal plan. A retaining wall may also be
needed.
- Unclear whether one or two curb cuts onto Rt 13 into high traffic zone.
- Contrary to city policy preference for parking behind buildings close to road.
- Excessive parking provided.
-Site appears to have potential for excessive wetness. Drainage plans need review for
adequacy and possible SPDES requirement.
- Unclear whether vegetation removal plan includes mature street trees including 4
maples, which are part of a long line of trees which improve the appearance of Elmira Road
corridor.
- Sidewalks should be required.
- Unclear whether adequate containment for automotive fluids and lead acid batteries for
wet site
E. Lincoln Hall addition on Cornell Campus. It is our understanding that modification
of historic buildings requires a long form EIS. However, our only substantial concern refers
to the possible altered views from the historic quadrangle.
3. New stuff "buy Gerard recommends that we have greater presence at planning meetings
and ComGmt won Council meetings.
Respectfully submitted, Judy Jones
ME!
Memo to:
Cc:
From:
Re:
Date:
Building Dept., BZA
Applicant
Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
Conservation Advisory Council
Penniman variance (to permit 4 instead of 3 unrelated people in rooming house)
July 13, 1998
Recommendation: Mr. Penniman appears to make a reasonable case, since the house
could have 6 unrelated occupants, if it were divided into two apartments. We suggest that, if
approval is granted, it be conditioned on the approval applying only so long as the house
remains one unit.
Memo to: Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
Building Dept., BZA
From: Conservation Advisory Council
Re: Ordinance revisions: Accessory Apt. changes
Awnings and Canopies
Date: 7/13/98
Recommendation: Negative declaration (no significant impact)
Memo to: Planning Board 4 %cpl-.
Cornell University - -c /o Gary Wilhelm, Humphrey's Service Bldg.
ILPC
Cc: Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
Building Dept.
From: Conservation Advisory Council's EAF Subcommittee
Re: Lincoln Hall additions and changes
Date: 7/13/98
Recommendation: We do not feel qualified to comment on the impact to this historic
building or historic area of the Quad.
Comments: Since the project involves an historic building and area, it is a Type 1 Action,
and a Long EAF should be prepared. On the short form, questions # 1, 8, and 9 should be
checked "yes" (large physical change to site, visual character, historic importance of
structure).
We are concerned about the appearance from the west (Arts Quad). Will the addition
appear to loom over the old part? We also hope that materials and style will be matched to
the old building, hence avoiding the unfortunate appearance of parts of the new Sage Hall
addition.
')- L
Memo to: Planning Board 4--DI-i:"
" AutoZone"
Cc: Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
CAC members
BPW, DPW
Building Dept.
From: Conservation Advisory Council
Re: Autozone Discount Auto Parts_'Store at 309 Elmira Rd.
Date: July 13, 1998
Recommendation: Positive Declaration
Comments:
1. Our biggest concern is with the significant impact this project would have on the
South Meadow St. and Spencer Rd. residential neighborhood. The removal of the site's
vegetation, and replacement with very skimpy landscaping, will mean virtually no vegetation
buffer between the store and the traffic on route 13, on the one hand, and the homes, on the
other. Currently, the site has a number of large trees, notably willow and cottonwood.
These serve as a visual, noise, and pollution buffer from the stark surrounding commercial
and highway uses. If the project were redesigned, with the store near the front of the site,
and a small parking area (far smaller than proposed in the plan) behind and next to it, much
of the existing vegetation could be retained. Without this buffer, these homes will become
almost unlivable. The proposed walls or fencing would not be an adequate substitute. We
should note that the City has been trying to have new businesses sited near the front of lots,
with parking behind. Our recommendation is consistent with this.
2. A second major concern is with drainage. The site is lower than surrounding land,
and may be serving as something of a retention basin. It is a wet site. Replacing permeable
surfaces and the large willows and cottonwoods, which soak up large amounts of water, with
pavement, could lead to significant flooding problems on surrounding properties -- homes,
businesses, and route 13.
We wonder if the wetland status of the site has been analyzed. Might it, perhaps,
meet Army Corps of Engineers criteria? While certainly not a high quality wetland, it
appears to be serving at least one important wetland function, flood control.
3. We do not see plans for a sidewalk along route 13 at the front of the site. We urge
the Planning Board to require this.
4. Would the line of 9 well established trees along route 13, within the highway right -
of -way, be removed, and if so, why? The Planning Board should require that these be left.
They have finally reached a reasonable size, and replacements would take a long time to
catch up.
5. The appearance of the building -- shape, facades, color scheme (orange and red
stripes!), and signage - -needs extensive revision. Among other things, the applicant should
not be permitted to include the large amount of space shown in the plans for two
"AutoZone" signs, incorporated into the building's facade on two sides. These clearly are
signs, even if the applicant may be trying to make them look like some sort of "design
element. "
6. Question: What is the odd T- shaped area at the northeasterly end of the site?
Another curb cut? This seems to be in the turning lane area of route 13.
Specific Comments on the LEAF, Part 2: '
#1: "Clearcutting or removal of veg .... from more than 1h acre:" Must be in column 2
(potential large impact), since the threshold of 1/z acre is exceeded. (And the impact clearly
will be large.)
#5: (Water bodies) "Other impacts:" Site is wet and may fall under the ACE definition
of a wetland. It may be serving as a retention basin. Should be checked in col. 2.
#7 (Alteration of drainage) "Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns" and
"Other impacts -- changes in pattern of runoff on site:" Should both be checked in col. 2.
#10 (Species) "Project requires removal of more than 1/2 ac. of mature woods or other
vegetation:" Should be checked in col. 2 since threshold is exceeded.
If the 9 street trees would be removed, then "Other impacts" should be checked in
col. 2, as well.
#11 (Visual character of neighborhood) "Other impacts:" Check in col. 2: As designed,
the project would destroy a very important visual buffer between the residential
neighborhood, and the commercial area and route 13. The loss of this buffer (also serving as
a noise and pollution buffer and remediation of flooding) would be one of the most
significant impacts of the project. Moreover, for the sake of travellers on route 13, the
appearance of the building needs to be completely reworked and the landscaping improved.
#16 (Noise) "Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen
(vegetation removal) ": check in col. 2.
#18 (Character of existing community) "Other impacts:" As already stated, the project,
as designed, would have a very large impact on the adjacent residential community on South
Meadow St. and Spencer Rd.
Conclusion:
To win Planning Board approval, the site plan needs to be extensively revised. Large
existing areas of vegetation (esp. trees) need to be retained, to provide an adequate buffer,
parking should be reduced; the building moved toward the road; and the appearance of the
building needs complete revision.
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes -- Meeting of August 10, 1998
Present: Judy Jones, Dan Hoffman, Paul Salon, Betsy Darlington, Guy Gerard
Paul called the meeting to order at 7:40. Betsy agreed to do the minutes for the meeting. She
also agreed to be the CAC's "convenor," since we are currently lacking a Chairperson.
Betsy announced that the Mayor had finally appointed Greg Thomas last week, and that Greg
was pleased that this had happened. He was sorry to be unable to attend tonight's meeting.
1. The July Minutes were approved with the following amendment: Dan Hoffman recused
himself from the discussion of the Penniman EAF because his firm is representing Mr.
Penniman.
2. The only EAF we had for review was for the Inlet Island Plan, and discussion of this
occupied the rest of the meeting. A number of concerns were raised, but most notably, the
appearance of the Island if the Plan is implemented, and the risk of flooding. All agreed that
the Island is in bad need of improvement, and the Plan's goals are on the mark, but we feared
that the Plan would not accomplish the intended goals. The details of the discussion are
contained in the memo to Common Council and the Planning Board.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:50.
Submitted by Betsy Darlington
NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 7 :30 PM, CITY HALL
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
Minutes
Meeting of Sept. 14, 1998
Present: Guy Gerard, Dan Hoffman, Judy Jones, Greg Thomas, Betsy
Darlington; EMC liaison, Barbara Ebert; City Planner Joanne Cornish
Dan agreed to chair the meeting, and Betsy to take minutes.
1. Bike Plan discussion and recommendation:
Following the discussion, the vote was 4 -1 to recommend a
negative declaration.
Joanne explained that the DPW will have to get approval from Common
Council for each step of implementation of the plan. Joanne's presence
was very helpful, in answering certain questions that arose during the
discussion.
We went through the LEAF, and discussed at some length certain
aspects of the plan, especially the effect that removal of some
parking would have. The comments on the EAF are in the memo to Common
Council.
2. Inlet Island discussion:
Joanne told us that the timetable has been delayed another month,
so that the consultant can make improvements and corrections in the
draft.
Our discussion touched on a number of concerns which will be put
into a draft of comments on the EAF, to be sent to all members prior
to our next meeting. At that meeting we will vote on the LEAF and
finalize our comments.
Some of the concerns /comments raised were:
The huge amount of parking planned for the Island, relative to the
amount of buildings and the small size of the Island;
The amount of traffic that would be generated;
The very large scale of the proposed buildings, for an area of the
city where currently there are few large buildings (seems out of
context);
The concern that the height and density of buildings are out of scale
with the small size of the Island;
The large scale of the proposed buildings, in light of the desire for
an attractive, marine - oriented waterfront that would draw residents
and tourists alike;
The appeal of small, low buildings along the promenade, in contrast to
the large structures envisioned in the plan;
The desirability of concentrating tall buildings, if any, to the south
of Route 89;
The ability of the soils to support such large buildings;
The potential for serious flooding on parts of the Island, esp. in the
100 -year flood plain portions;
The inconsistency between the plan's goals and the provision for
marine - oriented light manufacturing and wholesale businesses;
The effect on residents and drivers to the west, of bright or neon
lights on the west side of the Island.
3. Eaf's for variances requested by Temple Beth El and the Republica
nightclub were reviewed. Neg. dec. recommended for the Temple. Agreed
that we lacked sufficient information on the Republica situation, so
we deferred to the BZA.
4. Betsy asked about the Six -Mile Creek meeting, and whether or not
more land has been acquired by the City along Six -Mile Creek. Dan
said that use of lands there for substitute parkland has been
approved, so it is just a matter of time.
5. Since City Hall will be closed on our normal meeting date, we
agreed to meet on Oct. 19 or 20, depending on Paul Salon's ability to
be there.
Adjourned about 9:25 PM Submitted by Betsy Darlington
NEXT MEETING: OCT. 19 oR 20, 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Memo to: Planning Board & Common Council, Mayor
Cc:
City Attorney
CAC members
BPW, DPW
Building Dept.
From:
Conservation Advisory Council
Re:
Bike Plan
Date:
9/14/98
Recommendation: Neg. dec.
Comments on the LEAF:
Part I: We were missing page 1 of Part I.
Part II:
#11: (Views, etc.) Delete written comment under "other impacts"
#12: (Historic) Delete written comment under "other impacts"
#13: (Recreation) Check should be in col. 2, but marked as a
positive impact
#14: (Transportation) Add to written comment, "parking removal
will result in more cruising in search of parking."
#17: (Health and safety) Delete from written comment, the phrase,
"greater potential for personal injury." We felt that just the
opposite was the case.
#18: (Community character) Under third example, check in column
1, then write in, "Increased pressure to create off - street
parking in yards."
#19: (Controversy) Delete check mark by first example; move check
mark for second example into column 2.
Part III:
6th paragraph: Insert "parking" after the word "shopping." (Fewer
people would be needing parking, and we felt this should be
noted.)
Health and Hazards para.: Add, "There may be less air and water
Pollution because of a reduction in auto use."
Memo to: Building Commissioner and BZA
Mr. Daigle - -for "Republica" nightclub
Cc: Planning Board
Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
CAC members
From: Conservation Advisory Council
Re: Variance for Republica nightclub on Eddy St.
Date: 9/14/98
Recommendation: We do not feel that we have sufficient information to make a
recommendation.
Memo to: Building Commissioner and BZA
Temple Beth El
Cc: Planning Board
Common Council and Mayor
City Attorney
CAC members
From: Conservation Advisory Council
Re: Variance for Temple Beth -El
Recommendation: Negative declaration
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
MINUTES /EAF REVIEWS
Meeting of Oct. 20, 1998
Present: Judy Jones, Greg Thomas, Betsy Darlington; Barbara Ebert (EMC Liaison); JoAnn
Cornish (Planning Dept.); John Kiefer and Peter Karp (Cornell), and Kathy Wolf (Trowbridge
and Wolf)
Because of a lack of a quorum, we reconvened as the EAF Subcommittee. Betsy announced that
Dan Hoffman, Guy Gerard, and Paul Salon could not attend.
1. JoAnn, John, Peter and Kathy were at the meeting to present info about Cornell's North
Campus Plan. John is project leader, Peter is University architect, and Kathy is working on the
environmental review for Cornell. The proposal is for 580 additional beds, to house freshmen, so
that all can be housed on North Campus. The various details of the plan were explained. We
asked about energy efficiency plans for the buildings, re- use /recycling of demolished materials
(Pleasant Grove apts.), vegetation removal (esp. around Moore House).
We concurred with their recommendation of a positive declaration.
In our discussion, members wondered if the athletic fields couldn't be rearranged or
scaled back so that the historic Moore House and the huge trees next to it could be left
undisturbed. The attractive drainage -way to its south could also perhaps be left alone, if this were
done. We agreed that it is important to preserve this unique and historic and beautiful resource in
the setting where it belongs. We felt that there must be some good use for the building - -e.g. for
the day care center that currently is housed (inappropriately) in Purcell Union. We wondered
where the analysis is that documents a need for all the athletic fields.
2. Zoning EAF: We agreed that digitalization of the map was a good idea, but wondered
about the zoning changes for Area 1 O (Flood Relief Channel) - -why put this into the I -1 and B-
5 zone ?; and for Area 5 (along Floral Ave.) - -what was the rationale for changing this from P -1
to R -3a? With these two exceptions, the proposal was acceptable to us.
3. Zoning variances:
#2398: Seaney - -513 Esty St.: If there is sufficient on- street parking or perhaps at Ithaca
Fabricating, or if future building uses would need little parking, this proposal looked ok to us.
We agreed that this nice old building should be used. We agreed that it would be good to
formalize possible parking arrangements with Ithaca Fabricating, should this be the intention.
Was this building marooned by the recent road work? If so, the City needs to address the
problems created by this.
#2396: Lerner - -Plain St.: We agreed that a neg. dec. was appropriate. This street, in our
experience, is lightly traveled and has ample on- street parking.
#2397: Christie and Clapp- -Giles St.: We were opposed to this variance, and recommend a
positive dec. The owners are to be commended for their restoration of various buildings that
were in bad disrepair. But it should be remembered that a variance is "forever." These landlords
will not always be the landlords for this building, and future landlords may not be as careful in
screening their tenants. Our major concern is with trash going into the gorge, especially from
the back of the building. Both in this area and along other gorges in the City, residents of
buildings that sit on the lip of the gorges are a perennial problem, either through carelessness or
deliberate dumping into the gorges. Back decks on this building exacerbate the problem.
We recommend that, rather than increase the number of residents, the owners take
inexpensive measures to significantly reduce their fuel usage. Greg explained that tall buildings
such as this act as chimneys for air which leaks in at the bottom and exits through the top. The
taller the building, the higher the rate of air leakage through the same size hole in the attic.
Residential wood frame buildings 60 feet tall can be very leaky.
Insulation is simply not enough. The building needs to be air - sealed, especially at the top
and bottom. Greg (whose field of expertise is exactly this type of thing) agreed to provide names
of resources for the owners, who could help them address this expensive heat leakage. [Later:
this in from Greg: The contact person is Dave Mountin at Tompkins County EOC. They do
private work as well as weatherization for low- income residents of Tompkins County.]
4. Inlet Island Plan: Betsy thought we were all through for the night, but Judy asked about
Inlet Island. It then turned out that Betsy thought we had finished that whole discussion in
September - -and in fact, she had just given JoAnn a copy of our comments from the Sept.
meeting. It turned out that senility had set in, and Betsy not only had forgotten that we hadn't
finalized our comments (which had been sent out to everyone on the CAC in Sept., but to which
she had not received any comments), but also hadn't re -read her own minutes of the Sept.
meeting. Therefore, we looked at the comments which Judy had brought with her (the same ones
just given to JoAnn), and decided that we should go ahead with them as they were. More should
have been made of the inadequacy of the stormwater discussion, and we should have asked
where the analysis was that demonstrated a need for such large buildings called for in the
plan. We agreed that the proposal was out -of -scale for that location, and for Ithaca.
5. Greg said that he will be out -of -town for the next meeting (advising New Jersey utilities
and the State of New Jersey on their energy conservation plans).
Adjourned at 9:20 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington
NEXTMEETINC: MON., NOV. 9,1998, 7 :30 PM, CITYHALL
Memo to: Common Council and Mayor
Planning Board & Dept. (Attn. Joann Cornish)
Cc: City Attorney
CAC members
BPW, DPW
Building Dept.
From: Conservation Advisory Council
Re: Inlet Island Development Plan EAF
Date: October 21, 1998
Recommendation: Positive declaration; a Generic EIS should be prepared. The Plan covers a
large area and has important implications and concerns that need to be addressed in depth. Various
aspects of the Plan need to be carefully evaluated, to make sure that the Plan will accomplish the
intended goals, and that its implementation will not have a variety of unintended impacts.
Comments:
1. We wholeheartedly approve of efforts to improve the appearance of Inlet Island, and to
make it an appealing place for visitors and residents to visit and to view as they approach Ithaca.
However, we are concerned that the Plan, as proposed, may not accomplish the intended goals.
2. The impression we had from the map is that the Island would be a sea of parking, with a
few buildings mixed in.
3. We understand that no analysis has been done of the soils, and whether or not they could
support such large buildings without pilings.
4. The stormwater discussion is inadequate. Given that the water table is so high, the
explanation about infiltration may be unrealistic.
5. We are concerned about the view of the Island from the west, as one approaches Ithaca,
and from homes in that direction - -both the scale of the buildings, which isn't in keeping with most
of the surroundings, and the impact of nighttime lighting.
6. Where is the analysis that demonstrates a need for such large buildings as are called for in
the plan?
7. We are concerned about having tall buildings on such a small island, and feel that if such
structures are permitted, they should be in the southern end of the Island, south of Route 89.
8. We feel that the open and water - related "feel" of the Island would be lost with such large
buildings. Some members who have been in other waterfront cities and towns agreed that there is
real appeal to a having a variety of small shops, but that such large buildings would not have much
appeal. The proposal is out -of -scale for that location, and for Ithaca.
The following comments follow the format of Part H of the EAF:
#1 (Impacts from physical changes to site): The various impacts checked in Part II, second column,
are not addressed in Part III.
#6 & #7 (Surface /groundwater quality) & (Drainage): How will there be adequate infiltration with
so much impermeable surface? The mitigation proposed in Part III -- infiltration- -would simply not
be possible if buildings covered 100 % of their lots. How can the pre - development conditions be
reproduced, as proposed in Part III, if open space is to be replaced with dense urban development?
One concern has to do with the magnitude of the proposed development in an area that
could be seriously damaged by future flooding. Prior to passage of the plan, the City should
consult extensively with knowledgeable civil /environmental engineers such as Prof. Gerhart Jirka
at Cornell. We suggest that the City request of President Rawlings (perhaps via Henrik Dullea)
that he enlist the help of Cornell's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. A consulting
engineering firm is unlikely to provide the necessary objective evaluation, especially if the firm
thought it might get the contract to do the engineering work involved. Such firms have a tendency
to view all natural obstacles as conquerable by humans.
Extensive analysis is needed of soils (e.g. can the soils, in fact, support this massing of
buildings ?), the effects of putting up steel sheet piling around the island (esp. on areas downstream
of the Island), the effect of significantly reducing the amount of permeable surface, and the
likelihood of flood potential. Aside from flooding of the Island itself, analysis is needed of the
effect on surrounding areas of impeding the flow of flood waters with massive buildings, and
sheet piling around the Island.
Nature has a way of undoing the plans of humans, especially when it comes to attempts to
control the flow of water. All indications are that extreme storm events are increasing. To
envision one potential scenario, let's imagine a flood on the order of the ones in 1972, `81, or `93.
The water is very high in the Inlet, the Flood Control Charnel, and the lake. A heavy
thunderstorm comes through at the north end of the lake, creating a difference in pressure between
the northern and southern parts of the lake, producing a storm surge from the lake, down the
Channel and Inlet. Would such an event overwhelm Inlet Island?
The natural evolution of the Flood Control Channel and Cayuga Inlet is to fill up with silt,
with the water then spreading out over a wider area during flood events. Dredging will have to be
done regularly, but if this is not done, the potential for flood damage is even greater.
Given that the water table can be as little as one foot below the surface, and that the Island
is in the flood plain, how safe would it be to install underground natural gas lines, to service the
new businesses? This needs to be addressed in the plan (and EAF).
Effluents from parking lots or parking garages need to be addressed in Part III. How will
these be handled?
#8 (Air quality): Part III predicts (re possible air quality concerns) that the rate of development
will be slow. What is the basis for this prediction? Even if true, the ultimate result will be the
same.
We feel that it is unrealistic to speculate (Part III) that there won't be that much vehicular
use on the Island. Two parking lots (or two parking garages, if warranted), plus parking along the
road, adds up to a lot of parking, and therefore traffic and air pollution.
#11 & #18 (Views, visual character) & (Character of community): We are concerned about the
density and height of the proposed buildings. In the area north of Route 89, five stories is
excessive and would have a negative impact on views of the Island from the west, and on views
to the west and to the water from places on the Island. We recommend a maximum of two stories
for that more northerly section of the Island. Development that is too dense or too tall, throughout
the Island, would diminish the Island's appeal for tourists and residents alike.
Since a major goal of the Plan is to make the Island visually appealing, it is critical that
there be adequate vegetation. The natural setting needs to be focused on, in developing the
Island. 100% of lot coverage does not bode well for this.
There is much in the plan about development guidelines, but no mention of colors that
might be used on the exterior of buildings. The Planning Board should be given the authority to
turn down plans for garish or discordant color schemes for building exteriors and signage. The
appearance of buildings from the west is especially critical, if the Plan's goals are to be realized.
It is important that any private development along the west side of the Island have strict
limitations on signage and lighting. With homes and a park just across the Channel, and cars
entering the City from the west, neon or other bright or flashing lights would be distasteful, to say
the least. Moreover, lights should not be on throughout the night, except perhaps for low -key
public lighting along the promenade.
We are puzzled that the proposed new zone for the Island would include among permitted
businesses such things as wholesale outlets and light manufacturing for marine - related
businesses. (Page 4 -3) (What does "conditional" mean? And why aren't these listed in Appendix
B ?) We feel that these are not compatible with the proposed "light- hearted, festive" atmosphere
and the recreational uses that the Plan envisions, and they should be deleted from the Plan.
What will happen to the large high voltage tower at the north end of the Island, now in the
middle of the proposed mini -park? It would seriously compromise the view both to and from
Lookout Point. On page 3 -14 of the Plan, we do not understand #7 -a. (In fact, we had three
different interpretations of it!)
#13 (Open space /recreation): The "feel" of the Island will be too dense and tall to enhance the
Island's visual appeal. Open space should be included within the private development areas, and
100% lot coverage should not be an option for a developer. Otherwise, the current open feel will
be lost.
#14 (Transportation): Traffic impacts aren't addressed in Part III, which simply says they will
need to be addressed. Given the amount of parking, and the large amount of traffic already
passing over the Island, there are likely to be large traffic impacts.
#15 (Energy): The Plan makes no mention of energy conservation measures, either in the design
of the buildings and or in the exterior lighting. Given the state of the planet, this is a serious
omission.
#11 & #16 (Visual resources) & (Quality of Life): Minimal commercial lighting should be
permitted on the west side of the Island, and businesses should not be permitted to be lit up
throughout the night. This is especially important for residents across the Channel from the Island.
#17 (Safety): As already discussed, flooding needs to be addressed - -both of the Island itself and
the potential for increased flooding elsewhere, as a result of the development.
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
MINUTES /EAF REVIEWS
Meeting of Nov. 9, 1998
Because of a lack of a quorum, we reconvened as the EAF Subcommittee.
Present: Judy Jones, Dan Hoffinan, Paul Salon, Betsy Darlington;
Barbara Ebert (EMC liaison)
Betsy announced that Guy Gerard could not attend due to illness, and, as he told us last month,
Greg Thomas was out of town. We therefore reconvened as the EAF Subcommittee. 1.
Haller Blvd. subdivision: Recommendation: Neg. dec. (no significant impact)
2. Johnson Boatyard's proposal for Willow Ave.: Recommendation: Neg. dec.
Comments:
a. As submitted, the plan is inadequate for us to understand the applicant's intentions for
site drainage, and in particular, just how the "detention" areas would function.
b. We were unable to read the plants listed for the landscaping, with the exception of
Norway maple. We strongly recommend that a native species be substituted (e.g. red maple),
and that this highly invasive non - native tree not be used. We suggest that the applicant consult
with the Shade Tree Advisory Committee or the City Forester for other native species that
would also be suitable for the site.
3. Transfer of a portion of parcel 127 -1 -1 to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency: This is
the City -owned triangle of land along the old railroad embankment that borders the southwest
portion of the City. We strongly protest this proposed action as premature and ill- advised,
and the environmental review as incomplete and improper.
The land in question is the commercially zoned portion of a parcel purchased by the City
for substitute parkland. The boundaries of the substitute parkland were established over 13
years ago. Other than selecting a comparable amount of acreage to replace the existing SW
Park, the City has never, over the course of those 13 years, studied, discussed or developed a
genuine plan for the new park /natural area that indicates how it will be used, how it will be
accessed, or how it will be protected from incompatible, proximate land uses. In fact, these
issues have been raised in the public debate concerning the proposed Southwest Area Landuse
Plan and presumably will be addressed in detail in the Generic Environmental Impact
Statement now being prepared and in the subsequent public hearings. One specific concern
already raised is the treatment of the land between Route 13 and the current substitute parkland
boundary (now mostly undeveloped but zoned for heavy commercial use), because of its
potential impacts (visual, noise, lighting, access, etc) on an adjacent park or natural area.
Furthermore, while Common Council recently established a long- overdue "Natural Areas
Commission" for the City, that would offer advice and guidance as to the needs and uses of the
new Southwest /Negundo Woods natural area, no appointments have been made to the NAC,
and the City has not had the benefit of the commission's thoughts or suggestions on this
pertinent issue.
The stated purpose of the proposed transfer of parcel 127 -1 -1 to the IURA is to provide for
its eventual sale as commercially zoned land. It is our experience that the IURA is far less
visible and familiar to the public and therefore less accountable than Common Council, and
that the IURA is able to dispose of public property more expeditiously and with fewer
"restrictions" than Common Council, and is chosen for this role precisely for this reason.
It is not responsible for the City to put the property into the hands of a less accountable
owner while environmental review for the entire SW area of the City, public comment, and the
recommendations of the new Natural Areas Commission are still pending. Conducting cursory
environmental review of the transfer, and deferring serious review until IURA is the owner,
amounts to "segmentation" of environmental review, not permitted under SEQR or CEQR.
The proposed transfer of this land is not as innocuous as it may sound. While it is true that
the simple process of transferring title to the land to IURA, in itself, would have no physical
impact, it is essential that the intent and eventual outcome be included in the evaluation. Under
SEQR, the maximum development that would be permitted as a result of an action must be
considered, as early as possible, in the environmental review. The "action" in this case is the
transfer, from public ownership to private ownership, of land now vacant that is zoned for
heavy commercial use. The City acknowledges that this is its intent, which it proposes to
accomplish in two steps: Transfer from City ownership to IURA ownership, then sale to a
private entity. Obviously, the City is not in a position to develop this "landlocked" parcel for
commercial purposes. However, if it were sold to an adjacent landowner or another private
entity which was able to consolidate it with one or more of the other large, privately held
parcels between the designated substitute parkland and Route 13, a development of very
significant proportions could be permitted "as of right," immediately adjacent to the park and
the planned bikeway. Therefore, this scenario should be addressed in any environmental
review of the proposed transfer.
This parcel provides the City, as co- steward (with the Town) of the new SW park/ natural
area, with important leverage regarding its protection. For example, it could be traded (with
private landowners) for a buffer, across the entire natural area, from adjacent commercial
development, and /or for an entrance to the park /natural area from Route 13. Once the parcel is
out of City ownership, the City's options will be significantly diminished. Why would the
City want to limit its options?
The Short EAF which we received should have been filled out with the City's ultimate
intention in mind. In that case, "yes" would have to have been checked for impacts on
waterways, drainage, groundwater quality, visual character, traffic, possibly paleontological
sites, and - -very important —on future recreational uses (not just of the parcel itself but of the
bike trail and the new SW Park). And in any event, the SEAF does not acknowledge that
park /recreational use is one of the current uses in the vicinity of the parcel in question.
Any action on this parcel should be deferred until the GEIS for the entire SW area is
completed, a comprehensive landuse plan is adopted and a plan for the new SW park /natural
area is formulated. Whenever it is conducted, environmental review of the proposed transfer
should consider its ultimate intention, not just the first of a series of planned steps.
4. North Campus Plan -- Scoping Document: The following points should be addressed in the
scope, in addition to items already on the list:
a. There should be discussion of the effect of new lights in the vicinity of the observatory
on the use of that facility (e.g. in the large, new parking lot, around the dining hall, along the
new roadway). Alternatives to minimize light pollution should be discussed. (Could the new
roadway be located to the north of the parking lot and dining hall, could lighting be subdued
and directed downward, could plantings provide a buffer, for example ?)
b. Alternatives to moving the Moore House should be discussed. For example, could the
basketball courts be eliminated, and the playing fields rearranged, so that the Moore House and
its historic setting can be maintained? Given the huge amount of playing fields already to the
north of Jessup Road, we question the need for the extent of the proposed facilities, and
question losing an important historic resource for this purpose.
c. The alternative of prohibiting freshman from bringing cars to Cornell should be
discussed. This would reduce the amount of parking needed and alleviate a lot of traffic
problems.
d. The alternative of keeping the Helen Newman parking lot where it is, and eliminating
the new parking lot, should be explored.
e. Foot traffic around the Triphammer Bridge should be evaluated, and the possible need
for a pedestrian signal light north of the bridge should be explored. Foot traffic is already
heavy in that area, at certain times of the day, and the potential for vehicle - pedestrian conflicts
should be addressed.
f. There should be discussion of the energy - efficient design of the buildings, including
incorporating solar gain, for heating and /or light, for example.
5. CEQR Revisions: A recent meeting of the Planning Board was supposed to discuss these.
The CAC has not been informed on what changes are proposed. Betsy agreed to find out if
there is a draft for us to review. If so, she will send it to Dan, for analysis.
6. Inlet Island Plan - -final draft: The CAC never received this, for some reason (except for
Dan, who went to the Planning Dept to request it). Betsy will ask the Planning Dept. to send
it to the other CAC members, together with any changes made by Common Council when it
approved the plan last week.
7. CAC Membership: Betsy will write a letter to the paper and contact radio stations, to
solicit members to fill the three vacancies. She will refer people to Paul Salon, who agreed to
interview prospective members.
Adjourned at 9 PM. Submitted by Betsy Darlington and Dan Hoffman
Finger Lakes Land T, 06:40 PM 12/15/98, Minutes
X- Sender: fllt - mailbox @postoffice4.mail.cornell.edu
X- Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) -- [Cornell
Modified]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:40:38 -0600
To: beel @cornell.edu, D1h306 @aol.com, G_Thomas @compuserve.com,
jwj2 @cornell.edu, dougf @ci.ithaca.ny.us, janaward5 @aol.com,
sues @ci.ithaca.ny.us
From: Finger Lakes Land Trust <fllt @cornell.edu>
Subject: Minutes
Sue, Julie, or some other great City Clerk's Office worker - -Could you
please hold these and send them out with January's agenda (on the back
of
it)? Thanks so much! - -Betsy Darlington
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Meeting of Mon., December 14, 1998
PRESENT: Dan Hoffman, Betsy Darlington, Judy Jones, Greg Thomas,
Paul
Salon, Guy Gerard; Leslie Chatterton (City Planner); CAC Applicants:
Michael Culotta, Harry Davis, Stephen Komor
1. Introductions: CAC applicants and members introduced themselves.
A
fourth applicant (Astrid Jirka) was unable to attend.
2. West End Urban Design Plan: Leslie graciously came to the meeting
and
gave an excellent summary of the plan's components. The plan was
started in
1994. Completion of the Octopus, which removed a significant
impediment to
development in the area, spurred completion of the plan. Leslie handed
out
Part III of the LEAF. The intent is to have a strong line between
commercial and residential uses. This plan extends west to the area
covered by the Inlet Island Plan. The latter extends across Cayuga
Inlet to
a depth of one tax parcel, so this plan does not touch the Inlet.
Leslie went over the goals and objectives of the plan, and some
of the
implementation features - -such as discouraging parking in the front of
buildings.
CAC's Various suggestions for improving the plan are reported in the
comments on the plan.
Leslie told us that the first public hearing will be this
Wednesday, Dec.
16. Common Council would like to adopt the plan in January.
3. SW Area land sale: Members reiterated concerns about the sale of
this
Printed for Sue Stickel <sues@ci.ithaca.ny.us> 1
Finger Lakes Land T, 06:40 PM 12/15/98, Minutes
land before there is a plan for the new SW Park and before the DEIS
for the
SW Area Plan is complete. It was agreed to reiterate our concerns,
stated
last month, and to support the Natural Areas Committee's position.
4. Hudson St. Restaurant /Bar variance request: The submittal was
incomplete: no map or drawing was provided and not enough information,
in
general. We agreed on the following concerns: impact on the
neighborhood
and impact on views. Currently, the site provides a lovely view
across the
valley which would be obstructed by the building. It was pointed out
that a
variance is "forever," and, if granted, the restaurant /bar could
change
considerably, perhaps in ways even more detrimental to the
neighborhood.
The consensus was that, at least based on the information provided,
this
variance should not be granted.
5. Minutes for Nov.: Approved
6. Membership: All agreed that the three candidates who had attended
would
make excellent additions to the CAC, and that Astrid Jirka, who could
not
attend, also would be a good choice. We agreed to recommend all four
to
the Mayor.
We also agreed to request reappointment of Paul Salon, Judy
Jones, and
Betsy Darlington, whose terms expire Dec. 31.
Adjourned about 9:45 PM. Submitted by Paul Salon and Betsy
Darlington
Printed for Sue Stickel <sues @ci.ithaca.ny.us> 2