HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1987-08-25 WON
RAtEO
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CODE 607
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
MINUTES - 8/25/87
Present: Chair Blumenthal, M. Sampson, S. Jackson, J. Daley,
T. Cookingham, S. Cummings . Deputy Director P. Mazzarella;
Preservation/Neighborhood Planner L. Chatterton; City Planner .
Jon Meigs . D. Stewart, W. Wendt, J. Ballantyne, E. Dicke -
Cornell Administrators . B. Ebert, Historic Ithaca.
Appellants, press, other interested parties.
1 . Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7 : 10
p.m.
2 . _Final Subdivision Approval : Schickel/202-04 Sunrise Rd.
Motion was made, seconded and carried to open the Public
Hearing. Sheila Cafferillo, 151 Oakwood Lane, buyer of the
property, was present. A member of the public who lives
within 200 ft. of the subdivision spoke in favor of the
request. Public Hearing was closed by motion. J. Daley MOVED
to grant Final Subdivision Approval, seconded by M. Sampson.
Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
Final Subdivision Approval: Lounsbery/209-13 N. Aurora
St. Motion was made, seconded and carried to open the Public
Hearing. George Pfann, Esq. was present to represent the
applicant. He had no further comment. Public Hearing was
closed by motion. Mr. Cookingham reported that the committee
found no problem with the subdivision request. This request
involves shifting an existing property line dividing the
properties, 'rather than dividing a single property as the
preliminary plat seemed to indicate. The present line
separating the two runs east-west, and the proposal would add
the rear portion of 213 to 209 . T. Cookingham MOVED to grant
Final Subdivision Approval, seconded by J. Daley. Vote: 5-0-
0 . Carried.
3 . Proposed Cornell University Theory and Supercomputing
Center: S. Blumenthal referred to a letter addressed to David
Stewart dated August 8, 1987 in which questions regarding the
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
P&D Board Minutes - 8/25/87 -2-
Theory Center were posed. Ms. Blumenthal explained that the
purpose of tonight's discussion was to formulate a response to
the UDC; the deadline for the response is September 15, 1987
at 5:00 p.m.
Stuart Stein addressed the Board; he explained he was
commenting from his various roles: he is an elected public
official of the Third Ward, he is a planner, and he is also a
professor from the Cornell community. He feels his
constituents are 'outraged' over Cornell's proposal. As a
planner, he is concerned about the planning process and the
implications involved. As a Cornell professor, he and his
colleagues have strong negative feelings about the Theory
Center project. He is recommending that the Planning Board
take a strong position against the proposal. Mr. Stein,
addressing the issue at length,has been outspoken in his role
as a County Representative; from his experience he has found
that some Cornell administrators differ in their view of
Cornell's responsibility toward the community. Cornell's
primary interest is certainly not the community. They
(Cornell administration) feel that Cornell's responsibility is
education - its mission is education - and that by its Charter
(legal responsibility) it must take actions that further
improve education at Cornell; if by chance such actions happen
to harm the community, then that is unfortunate.
Mr. Stein said he feels that the conflict that exists
between city and University need not exist. He believes it is
in. Cornell's interest to do things for education that in turn
'benefit the community; he strongly believes this is possible.
Mutual interests need to be determined and shared by open
process He urged the Planning Board to attempt to build a
relationship with Cornell which opens up planning processes,
engenders trust, and asks in return a sense of trust by both
parties. He further believes there is a distressing lack of
communication between the parties. In addition, it is his
belief that there are individuals who are making decisions, or
influencing decisions, who have no relationship to the
community - certain alumni, donors, members of the Board of
Trustees. Again, if there was an open process (instead of
secrecy) such situations would be avoided (e.g. , why Hoy Field
could not be used for the site? ) Cornell needs to recognize
that there are benefits in working with the community and that
people making decisions must be told that Cornell has a
responsibility to the community. The Theory Center is
desirable and should be built, but not at the proposed
location.
Three members of Cornell Administration were present:
David Stewart, Asst. Vice President Cornell Relations; William
Wendt, Director, Office of Transportation Services; and Eric
Dicke, Department of n ^���^^� D�^^tom^ Mr. Stewart
RL G 0Im
distributed a list of answers to the questions .posed in Ms.
Blumenthal's letter of August 8, 1987 - see attachment.
A eAvcoA S e Y v it v-S
P&D Board Minutes - 8/25/87 -3-
Mr. Stewart stated that the Sept. 15 deadline is being
extended for various reasons. The environmental impact
statement being prepared will require an additional public
hearing sometime this fall (date not yet available) . This
will allow for an additional period during which comments can
be submitted. Board members questioned whether the
'extension' referred to could be relied on, and by consensus
decided it would be best to meet the statutory deadline which
has been triggered by the UDC public hearing.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the size of the
building, the generation of additional traffic, infringement
on the gorge, and impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Mr.
Stewart mentioned that the proposal reflects integration . of
three comprehensive planning elements - the Theory Center
Plan, the Engineering Master Plan, and the Athletics Master
Plan. He was asked about consideration of alternate sites and
in particular Hoy Field. Hoy Field, according to Cornell
Administrator J. Ballantyne, is an integral part of the
athletic master plan. It is near Cornell's locker rooms and
other athletic facilities. Endowments have been given with
the idea that the field will remain intact. Cornell has made
extensive investments in the athletic program. Hoy Field is
not available as an alternate site.
Mr. Wendt distributed information regarding Parking
Distribution for the Cornell Campus 1982-1987 . He answered
questions from the Board relating to the study. He also
mentioned the East Hill Transportation Study being conducted
by the Town, County, City and Cornell which is a joint study
of circulation and traffic in the Ithaca area.
Recommendations for future improvement will follow this joint
planning effort.
Ms. Cummings asked about environmental review for the
project. Cornell has asked for a full environmental impact
statement on the proposed College of Engineering/Theory Center
building by an independent consulting firm (Donald J. Bergmann
and Assoc. of Rochester, NY) . Data for the study will be
gathered by Bergmann staff, and special consultants such as
plant ecologists will be retained. Areas to be addressed
include impact of the building on plant life, effect on soil
stability, erosion and siltation, visual impact, and impact on
parking and traffic. After the DEIS is prepared and
distributed, a public hearing will be held to receive
comments
Herbert Engman, Tompkins County Environmental Management
Council, addressed the Board on behalf of the Council. He
presented a Resolution wherein the Council recommended that
Cornell refrain from constructing the Theory Center near the
edge of the gorge and urging Cornell to develop long-range
P&D Board Minutes - 8/25/87 -4-
plans for protecting the gorges . Letters in opposition to the
proposed building site were also received from:
Ashley Miller, Chair, City of Ithaca Conservation
Advisory Council,
Prof. Robert E. Johnston, Cornell Dept. of Psychology,
Stephen Malloy Desormeaux, Cornell alumnus,
Assoc. Prof. Richard S. Booth, Dept. of City and
Regional Planning, and
Betsey Darlington, teacher, member of CAC and SPAG.
In addition, a memorandum was submitted to the Board
from Roger and LeMoyne Farrell posing questions to Cornell
University and UDC regarding the proposed Theory Center. The
consensus seemed to be that the Theory Center is a good and
vital project for Cornell but siting on the .gorge is
unacceptable and deleterious.
The Board discussed the legal implications of rejecting
Cornell's proposal. Mr. Mazzarella explained that the UDC
Board would need a 2/3 majority vote to proceed with the
project. He also noted that State law requires that the
Planning Board's comments be received by Sept. 15, 1987, 30
days after the Public Hearing. In spite of the lengthening of
the public comment period for the environmental review, the
Board should submit its recommendation about the project now.
Other comments relating to the environmental review can be
submitted later.
Mr. Jackson commented that he feels twomajor items
►have emerged: (1) infringement on the gorge which seems to be
part of a pattern (not an isolated incident) by Cornell and
(2Y the fact that there will be a substantial parking/traffic
impact on the adjacent neighborhoods (numbers provided by
Cornell suggest that this is a likely possibility. ) Mr.
Jackson is not convinced that an alternative site could not be
selected. He stated that he supports the Theory Center at an
alternate location, and with a less massive structure than
proposed.
MOTION was made (Jackson) to recommend against
construction of the Theory Center at the proposed location as
submitted. Seconded (Cummings) . Vote: 6-0-0. Unanimous.
See Resolution attached.
4. Preliminary Subdivision: 640 Hector Street. Mr..
Cookingham explained that the Committee had several questions
regarding this request. First, a subdivision of this size
requires environmental review under city regulations and all
stages of review must be completed before Final Approval is
given. The number of lots proposed implies a fairly sizable
potential increase in residential traffic which must -be
evaluated. Second, adequacy of street access maybe limiting
or may require upgrading. Third, some of the lot
sizes/dimensions shown on the application appear to be
P&D Board Minutes - 8/25/87 -5-
substandard, but it is likely these can be adjusted to
conform. Mr. Garcia, applicant, was present. He answered
questions regarding size of the proposed parcels and regarding
the LEAF that he is completing. The Committee recommends
preliminary approval subject to satisfactory resolution of the
matters addressed. Mr. Meigs explained that the application
for final approval shall be submitted by the applicant within
six months after preliminary approval or the request becomes
void (unless extension is applied for and granted) .
MOTION was made by T. Cookingham, seconded by J. Daley,
to grant preliminary subdivision approval. Vote: 6-0-0.
Carried.
5. Zoning Appeals 1782 and 1783: See memorandum to Board of
Zoning Appeals dated 8/31/87 attached.
6. Stewart Park - Landmarks Designation: L. Chatterton
informed the Board that the ILPC voted to designate the entire
Stewart Park as a local landmark. A presentation at the
public hearing was made by Historic Ithaca who did
considerable research demonstrating the architectural,
historical, and cultural significance of the park and making a
case for its integrity. These criteria were used by the
Commission to make its recommendation. Written comment had
been received from the BPW supporting designation of the
buildings alone and opposing designation of the entire park.
Another written comment was from the Mayor suggesting a parks
commission be established having review power. Other spoken
comments were all in favor of the designation.
Ms. Chatterton said the next step was for the Planning
Board to submit a report to Common Council on the designation
as it relates to the Master Plan, zoning laws, projected
public improvements and any plans for renewal of the site or
area involved.
Mr. Daley explained that BPW recommended designation of
buildings only to forestallwhat might be a cumbersome
process; they felt that the real historic aspect was displayed
in the buildings; designation of the entire park would mean no
changes to shrubs or foliage, etc. , without ILPC review.
Barbara Ebert refuted Mr. Daley' s statement, saying one-
for-one replacement would require no approval; review might
include a yearly plan of maintenance.
S. Cummings stated that in order for the park to be
eligible for State Environmental Bond Act monies, municipal
designation alone. is insufficient. Maintenance of the
buildings (e.g. , boathouse) will be costly and the city will
need assistance. Nomination from ILPC and Council must meet
local guidelines as well as rigorous State and National
regulations. Ms . Chatterton stated that a State Parks
P&D Board Minutes - 8/25/87 -6-
representative who saw the site this spring believed that the
boathouse was definitely eligible for the National Register.
He had concerns about the larger national significance of the
entire park or even the other structures considering the
changes already made -integrity; conversion; moving of kiosk
to another site; etc.
Ms. Cummings questioned qualifications of ILPC
membership, relative to decision-making if the entire park
were designated. Ms. Chatterton explained that in dealing
with issues where the Commission does not have qualifying
membership or expertise, the ILPC calls in technical
assistance and bases their decisions on the advice received.
Mr. Jackson thought it would be awkward for the ILPC to
be overseeing the DPW in these matters . It would be more
appropriate to have a parks commission whose membership would
include expertise in this area.
Mr. Daley said DPW has also discussed a parks commission
- either as part of DPW or as an independent body to address
all the city parks.
Barbara Ebert commented that the ordinance states that
ILPC does have the power to regulate ecologically natural
landscapes . She feels that due to current public sentiment to
designate and protect natural landscapes, the ILPC may be
called on frequently to exercise this power in the future.
Mr. Jackson stated that the Board might find that .the
park had historic significance but may not designate ILPC to
be the reviewing body; support for a parks commission to work
with ILPC might be viable.
It was decided to defer voting on this issue until the
October meeting pending further information from the BPW
regarding the parks commission and input from the ILPC on how
the two groups would interface.
7 . Cornell Heights Landmark Designation: Ms . Chatterton told
the Board that the survey work was completed on August 15 and
National Register Nomination review is scheduled for September
3-4. The State Review Board informed her that Cornell has
objected to the nomination and has asked for a postponement of
the hearing until December.
T. Cookingham, seconded by S. Jackson, MOVED to
recommended that letters be sent to the State Review Board
from the Planning Board, Planning and Development Committee,
ILPC, and Mayor urging review of the nomination on September 3-
4 without further delay. Vote: 6-0-0. Carried.
P&D Board Minutes - 8/25/87 -7-
8. Preliminary Subdivision: 414 Cascadilla Street. Mr.
Cookingham reported to the Board that the committee feels this
lot line adjustment is acceptable in concept, but urges
applicants to seriously investigate an alternate that would at
least eliminate the side setback deficiency that the proposed
property line would only marginally reduce. The remaining
front and side setback deficiencies for both parcels would not
be affected. T. Cookingham MOVED to recommend preliminary
subdivision approval, seconded by S. Cummings. Vote: 6-0-0.
Carried.
9 . Preliminary Subdivision: 109 S. Titus Ave. The committee
recommends conditional approval noting that more complete site
layout information is required before final approval.
Provisions for on-site parking need to be explored. S.
Cummings stated that neighbors in the area have voiced their
concern regarding this subdivisionrequest - they expect the
result will be a multiple dwelling unit adding more students
to the neighborhood.
The Board wished to know more of the specifics of the
proposed development, however, the applicant was not in
attendance. It was decided to ask the applicant for
additional information regarding site development, topography,
landscaping, etc. They would like to see a map showing the
relationship of proposed houses to structures on surrounding
properties, and a description of proposed housing (design,
unit size, etc. ) . Ms . Cummings MOVED, seconded by S. Jackson,
to postpone consideration of the subdivision request for 30
days pending additional information as described above.
Vote: 5-0-0 . Carried.
10. Zoning Appeal 1780: A letter from R. Grippi was received
regarding subject appeal. ac e
11. Approval of August 1987 Minutes was MOVED and seconded.
Motion carried.
12 . Adjournment - 11:00 p.m.
IT$,q�
�•9
poRA7Eo
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEMORANDUM CODE 607
To: Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Board of Planning and Development
Re: Report on Appeals 1782 and 1783
Date: August 31, 1987
At its August 25, 1987 meeting, this Board heard
the subject appeals, and reports as follows :
Appeal 1782 : Special Permit for erection of a
satellite TV receiving disk at 517 W. State (B-2a) . Mr.
Cookingham stated that his committee had recommended hearing this
case chiefly because it serves to demonstrate the relative lack
of provisions to mitigate the negative impacts of individual TV
receptors in residential areas : only setback standards the same
as for buildings are applicable, leaving the potential for highly
visible satellite disks to detract from the visual appearance of
a. neighborhood.
Mr. Vernon Gambrell, P. E. , representing appellant
explained the proposal and answered members ' questions about
subject disk's proposed location and the reasons therefor. He .
concluded by pointing out that no permit would be required if the
disk were not permanently mounted; it could function as well from
a trailer. No member of the public addressed the Board.
Mr. Cookingham, seconded by Mr. Daley, MOVED to
pass the appeal to BZA with the comment that alternations should
be examined in an effort to reduce the visual impact of the disk,
including locating it in a less prominent spot, or screening it
with a parapet or other means of lessening its visibility.
Motion PASSED 5-0 .
Ms . Cummings, seconded by Mr. Daley, MOVED that the
matter of standards for siting such structures, with attention to
matters of visual impact, be referred back to the Board's Codes
and Administration Committee for study. Motion PASSED 4-0-1
(Daley) .
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
-2-
Appeal 1783 : Use Variance for use of 715-19
Hancock St. (R-3a) for parking for customers of a business in the
adjacent B-2a zone. Mr. Cookingham stated that the committee
felt the request was effectively for a rezoning, since the result
of granting the appeal would make a new, nonconforming use legal
for the property. Rezoning is the responsibility of Council, not
BZA. The committee therefore recommends that the Board recommend
Denial of the appeal, and that appellant seek a rezoning of the
property. No representative of appellant was present, nor was
there public comment.
Mr. Cookingham MOVED that the Board recommend
Denial of Appeal 1783; seconded by Mr. Sampson and Passed 5-0.
Mr. Cookingham also MOVED that appellant seek a
rezoning of the property to a more appropriate zone for the
purpose; seconded by Mr. Sampson and Passed 5-0 .
JM/mc
C .�,, bV`t�1�� Cz/,,4&Y, August 25, 1987
RESPONSES TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD'S QUESTIONS
I. BUILDING SITE
A. What are the subsurface soil conditions on the building site?
Sub-surface soil conditions: four- to six-inch topsoil; six- to eight-foot
fill, consisting of brown silt sand with gravel, brick, and cinders; eight- to
20-foot brown clay and silt turning to grey silt; at 20 to 25 feet below grade,
20-ton rock is reached. (This level is 10 to 20 feet below basement slab.
Elevation of bed rock will be noted on foundation drawings. )
B. Have soil borings been completed?
Yes. The final report is due soon.
C. What provisions will be made to protect against erosion at the gorge edge and
siltation of Cascad.illa Creek, both during and after construction?
Numerous construction provisions will be made to protect the gorge from
siltation. These include:
1. Construction of a fence five feet outside of the building line, which is
lined with hay bales and/or a geotechnical filter fabric (Mirafi) to catch
sediment in that zone.
2. A berm will be created as part of the emergency/delivery access drive,
which will run east-west along the southern edge of the building This
will lead to a sediment basin at the southwest corner of the building where
the water and silt will be separated by baffles. The silt will be moni-
tored and excavated as necessary, and the water will be returned to the
existing storm drainage system.
3. All utility connections will be made north of the construction fence line,
so no trenching will occur in the gorge.
4. Construction of the building will be entirely from the north side of-the
protective fence line.
5. The emergency/delivery access drive within the building and the building
itself are designed so that, on the south side, the final grading is the
existing grading, thereby minimizing disruption on that side.
D. What alternate building sites were considered and why were they rejected?
Building site selection was reduced to three primary candidates based on
overall campus planning guidelines and the building program, which includes
Phase I of the Engineering Master Plan.
1. The north side of the engineering quad was eliminated because:
a. The proposed building has low student use and that site is intended for
a focus of student activity.
-more-
page 2
b. The building will involve outside visitors and will need campus
entrance visibility and adequate visitor parking.
2. The south side of Kimball/Bard/Thurston was eliminated because:
a. It precluded that building's expansion, which consists of special
building conditions (e.g. , floor-to-floor heights and load-carrying
capacities) .
b. Construction would be difficult because it would have to be over the
service access to Ward and Thurston.
c. The site is adjacent to the footbridge and is not large enough to
handle the building program and still maintain Thurston expansion
potential.
E. Why does the supercomputer/Theory Center have to be sited on the Engineering
Quad?
The project is a combination of College of Engineering programs and Theory
Center programs and needs to be physically connected to the Engineering Quad
for both programs. This connection is required because of the need for
physical interaction between researchers of basic sciences and those of i
engineering. Because the Theory Center is a joint venture with outside
entities as well, placing the building on the southeast corner of the
Engineering Quad is the best of the engineering sites.
II. VISUAL IMPACT
A. What will be the visual impact of the building from various vantage points?
The visual impact from various vantage points around the city will be evaluated
in the Environmental Impact Study. The building will be visible from some
locations, and that should be seen as a potential advantage. It will be a
point of reference located among other points on the Cornell campus.
B. What is the relationship of the height and bulk of the Theory Center building
to other buildings on the Cornell campus and in the City of Ithaca?
The relationship of height to other buildings on the Cornell campus is best
illustrated with the attached diagram. This issue will be explored further in
the Environmental Impact Study.
-more-
r
page 3
[. BUILDING DESIGN
A. What alternate building designs were considered? Why were they rejected in
favor of this design?
The building design was synthesized from numerous parameters, including the
site, building program, climate, cost, future flexibility requirements,
adjacency requirements, access, and parking, etc. Taller buildings were
rejected because of their lack of context with the open spaces and other tall
buildings in the area, such as Barton Hall and the Crescent at Schoellkopf. A
less-expensive design with the elevator core in the main building was rejected
because it would have made the building longer, made the interior less flexi-
ble, and made the vertical circulation separate from the Grum connection. A
concept with the emergency/delivery access drive to the south of the building
was discarded as having too much impact on the gorge.
There have been a number of design evolutions throughout the process, such
as reversing the positions of the Theory Center and College of Engineering
within the building, changing the east facade, moving the building north 10
feet, and enclosing the rooftop mechanical equipment in a brick enclosure, to
name just four. The basic concept of a building of that size, in that configu-
ration, with a separate vertical core to both help the building "round the
corner," as well as keeping the vertical circulation separate from the horizon-
tal, has been relatively constant throughout the process. This is because it
has clearly been the solution that maximizes the necessary relationships while
minimizing the negative impacts.
IV. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNELL CAMPUS
A. Please elaborate on Cornell's plans for development. Specific information is
required about the following issues:
1. Development of the Engineering College, including physical development,
growth in student enrollment, growth in faculty and staff positions and the
potential for spinoff employment as a result of research activities.
The greatest challenge facing Cornell University's College of Engineering
is the provision of adequate facilities for teaching and research. Ranked
among the best in the country, the engineering college suffers severely
from lack of quality research and teaching space.
Except for relatively small research facility additions and construction
of Snee Hall and Knight Laboratory, there have been no major construction
projects on the engineering campus in a quarter of a century.
-more-
a
page4
The first step in forming a long-range facilities plan was a comprehen-
sive examination of the future of engineering education and the role of
Cornell's College -of Engineering, carried out in 1984-85 by a faculty
committee appointed by Dean William B. Streett and chaired by Profes-
sor Herbert H. Johnson of the Department of Materials Science and Engi-
neering. The committee's findings were summarized in a June 1985 report,
"The College of Engineering: A Plan for the Future."
The Johnson Committee Report noted that, since World War II, advances
in science and technology, together with the revolution in computing and
information processing, have resulted in dramatic growth in graduate edu-
cation and research in engineering. The report also said the current drive
for improved efficiency and economic competitiveness in the nation's indus-
tries has set the stage for a new golden age of engineering. It reaffirmed
the college's commitment to maintaining the size and quality of its under-
graduate programs, and pointed out the likelihood of continued growth of
multi-disciplinary programs in graduate education and research.
A basic problem facing Cornell, the report observed, is that the present
engineering buildings, apart from Snee Hall and several recent laboratory
additions, were designed almost exclusively for undergraduate instruction,
with space to accommodate approximately 2,400 undergraduate students (the
current enrollment) . The presence of more than 1,100 graduate students,
together with research programs funded at more than $45 million per year-
(1986-87 figures) , has placed a severe strain on these facilities, and the
shortage of space prevents many faculty members and students from reaching
their full potential. The existing buildings provide approximately 500,000.
net square feet of classroom, laboratory, and office space. The committee
recommended extensive renovation and upgrading of these facilities, and new
construction to add at least 150,000 net square feet to meet the needs of
the college and to provide a permanent home in the College of Engineering
for the Center for Theory and Simulation in Science and Engineering (the
Theory Center) .
Following extensive discussions of the Johnson Committee Report, the
university and the trustees approved an architectural feasibility study,
carried out in 1985-86 by the firm of Bohm-NBBJ of Columbus, Ohio, in close
consultation with the faculty and the space planning firm of Dober and
Associates of Belmont, Mass. Detailed figures were developed for current
and future space needs, based -on existing and projected programs and
-more-
page 5
supported by comparisons with space provided for engineering facilities at
peer institutions, including Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Illinois, Minnesota,
and others. A careful analysis of the entire engineering complex and how
it relates to the surrounding campus was carried out, including possibili-
ties for expansion into surrounding areas, traffic patterns, potential
building sites, and the overall capacity of the complex to accommodate new
buildings and additions. The report also addressed broad questions of
function, size, location, aesthetics, priority, and cost of new and reno-
vated facilities. The results, expressed in general concepts rather than
specific design solutions, were published in the summer of 1986 in "The
Master Plan for Engineering Facilities at Cornell." The principal findings
and reconuiendations were:
* Renovation of existing buildings is feasible, and will be cost effective.
* Approximately 256,000 net square feet of new space are needed for the
college, the engineering library, and the Theory Center.
* There is sufficient land area in and around the engineering quadrangle to
accommodate all the needed construction.
* New and existing buildings should be linked together, where it is
practical to do so, to provide an integrated complex.
The total cost of renovations and new construction outlined in the
master plan was estimated to be $134 to $156 million. Implementation of
the plan will require at least a decade of intensive efforts, and it will
have a high priority within the College of Engineering.
2. Development plans for the entire Cornell campus, including new building
construction, expected student population, and the expected increases in
faculty and staff positions.
See the attached material (Cornell '87), which describes the overall
proposed building plan for the Ithaca campus.
Growth in student, staff, and faculty populations can be seen from the
chart on page 6.
-more-
1 ,
r.
4
page 6
(fall 1980) ( 1986-87) 1990
STUDENTS 16,937 17,588 holding steady on the
undergraduate level;
slight increase in
the graduate student
population
I
1982-83 1986-87 1990
SUPPORT STAFF
academic (non-faculty) 856 899 925+
non-academic 5,966 6,380 6,650+
FACULTY 1,553 1,561 expected to
hold about
even
V. PARKING AND TRAFFIC
A. What are the elements of the Transportation Master Plan?
The Transportation Master Plan is a conceptual plan for improvements to parking
and circulation on the campus. The plan currently being implemented was re-
viewed by the Board of Trustees in 1984 and various stages of the plan have
been carried out in coordination with other new building and program develop-
ment on the campus. Since adoption of the plan, approximately $10 million has
been spent on various elements to improve the campus.
B. What is the net change in parking supply on campus, particularly as it relates
to the south side of the campus near the Engineering Quadrangle?
Attached is a sheet listing the Cornell University Campus Parking distribution
1982 to 1987. The area of the Engineering College is shown .as area #4. That
information shows that we have added some 615 parking spaces to that zone
during the last five years.
C. Please show how the additional demand created by new students, staff, and
visitors has been met by the parking supply.
The additional demand created by new students, staff, and visitors can be
seen by looking at past, current, and future commuting populations to the
campus. In 1980, the university had a daily commuting population of 10,463
individuals. At that time, central campus had 6,261 parking spaces. That is a
permit-to-space ratio of 1.6.
In 1986, that commuting population had expanded to 12,822 individuals.
University parking spaces amounted to 9,179 spaces, bringing down the ratio
to 1.4.
It is our projection that the commuting population will rise to 13,200
individuals by 1990. At the same time, we expect parking spaces to number .
9,700 spaces. That is a ratio of 1.3.
The opportunity to park from 1980 to 1986 has improved. Please remember
that numbers are skewed because the staff commuting population base has an
option for a free permit. That means that some people counted in the commuting
population take a permit free of charge but use it only occasionally. Such
individuals may use Ithaca Transit, TomTran services, walk, bike, or car pool,
or use other transportation alternatives, and use that permit at such time when
I
the need arises (i.e. , inclement weather, other appointments on a given day,
doctor's appointments, etc. ) . In 1986, more short-term and visitor parking
spaces were developed. In 1980, there were 149 spaces; in 1986 this number
increased to 467.
I
-more-
I
page 7
D. Please describe how changes in the traffic patterns and volumes affect areas
surrounding the Cornell campus.
Because Cornell's central campus is located between two gorges that are acces-
sible over three bridges within the City of Ithaca and several other roadways,
changes in traffic on the central campus affect Cornell interior roads. The
main routes to the campus have not changed. Traffic volume on streets in
neighborhoods surrounding the campus reflect the general growth in the overall
Ithaca urban population. Such numbers are available from the City of Ithaca
Traffic Engineer.
The university, the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and Tompkins County
are currently involved in a joint study of circulation and traffic in the East
Ithaca area. Recommendations for future improvements will follow this joint
planning effort.
RESPONSES TO ROGER FARRELL'S QUESTIONS
1. Can the site be shifted east and parallel to Campus Road so that the site avoids
the tree line and existing trails? Campus Road could even pass through the Theory
Center Building to save cutting into the athletic space.
No. This would require a complete re-design, block the Upson offices, and not relate
to the north-south grid upon which all the engineering buildings are located.
2. Can the Theory Center Building be placed on the north side of the Engineering
Quadrangle with a student walk-though similar to those at Clark Hall and Mann Library?
Relocation of the building would avoid having a fire lane pass through the building.
No. See response I, D, 1 on the Planning and Development Board sheets.
3. Can the lower level, i.e. , four story, classroom/office buildings, be placed
parallel to Campus Road, then, if the Theory Center Building is relocated?
No. See response #1 on this page.
4. Will cold water pipes be laid in the gorge or on sides of the gorge to conduct
water from a Chilled Water Plant? Where will the water come from?
All utilities come from the north, or, in the case of the phone, from the north and
west. There will be no construction for utilities in the gorge.
What degree of silt and run-off into Cascadilla Creek will be caused by laying of such
pipes?
See response I, C, 1-5 of Planning and Development Board sheets.
5. The proposed Theory Center Building will have a wall, facing south, approximately
150 x 260-square-foot area. This huge surface, depending on the material used, will be
a heat absorber in the sinner and radiator in the winter, or if a light colored
material is used, a reflector of light also. Of concern to the plant biologists is the
amount of heat radiation and particularly the effect of this radiation on plants during
the winter months.
This is the subject of the Environmental Impact Study.
1 S�`•�k�n��."••�r
?. �J�rl;.•„"� /fit �
1 tr�., -:i be '��r'+:• �
• 1 �7 i''S"� w
'��:4:�""fin:.:•:y';,:.
.,§`:.r�,r�w �.c.r'3•,#t :.1,t�:>� :'t..':•:'�;"r. ':f;:�:'SD` S _r?�41;n';a}Y.'
�t'$:�'^ mitt.':; :�, �'. u .✓, � � YiF^.; ;.yr:. r. Y
i.' ..;.. '.w•,'a` :��1.''.,i r-;,. '.,t�,.L.'G','• rS.�:.•d.=..:,..., �';>�•�„Fi,{{�'
1 tai✓b•tr.�: 'n�•• ';!!yd`, ,:fr"«ti:S'x;i:^;� r.F�r %%�.�� :si:�:i.. .� t
tnS?A S•+ A^;;, .”:}� .;;Y.. .a; '.i ''�:. 'r:eT=�.j'::`".�r as•:...tia '.",.•j;f:"�"p
t 'r ,Mq.S;�'w.' S:-'•gl:::I:�'ti<f �.5:•..Cr •�:.. 'ry���:1
,AAr°"�•'a .�::�' '�:•§;i �,D.. ,3A t•.,-S�t.. .,5., �;,":7."..;'�.i�.':�
• _rN:, �,% 'YS;'�`Yn�.nr''. '��rv..Y.. ':'!': .,4'.i r):r_'.i:^" +•e /il:;•� •('
1 rt^::.�^ TF:"�' ..:� ?"y., .Y.' 'Y• �.:"I."..vt ...��•. �X .k�'ii,ki
<:l:t: •., „�c,: 1. .'::. n1: .;�1:i� .;k':;;"v« 'j ',s !' +r{i�!'.:(i;){q i:,
y %�. ,k.. "5:r{r `i;r '�¢.. �'.:�.�,��}.,5•,.; ".a.. :u•' '�• .>xrb{;'.::=': Aa`-'A.-.k.
5•N!, ` n.y: 'V4•:')�: i,`���i.f Y:S �.,rt, t'��i :Y^:y' ..F•• ':A•': : k'
• -�,t+}.: .:t, _'y iii:i�'" .ti;,:;•�•S" .>:'t+^;'!•�.,'`:�k. :'r.+`'�'r '`•i J.•r,'.''i•r'�'t. ?.Si%:r"K.a'• 'ri,: °i'.:'.�t:'
1 •'� :.M.� :.`.h� •r3i;. i. • `.t.. C,r, p..,. r�. nry. .Si:,•
rY .d
!yw•. ✓F}. :1': N'� '�.^ti: ri+' "�' ='I' l.S.iJ'r :5l?:. _::..:� •]EF.
q. 5S'•'+' '�'::` +:I• ra^. ^l+. Ck,.'r !�..+ „o: �,t:. •c.'
a.T
6i YJe"�'� 'r.r. c; Ci+,; ,m=, cn. •Q':{ %1..•.k
t ,Vj• •i
I:N•:
.k�• w
r
J`4,r, Std
1
ni
i, 1. & t•
''t •�> St�a
L it;• "pt
:r.`.' .4 v;1'r, r"1.'k% •''�.•�: kt.TE i'• 'kr:u t 1 ,,{{ - �5•
74 .�
i'•
7r �• :k"
<,�' 'w � .Q1• •aye'.
• 1 ;+f',;`1.'=':;w"•C'�':?!y,'; F.l 1 .nM'"Y,+• �Yx •_`''�� ``r.'u;�; 'O '{Q, '""''
d%r'`' •�A t%a'5;�,' �:'!� :4r E�:...�• ,.J. •5i .Ir'. e .::+.:'Y.,' y ,,�5 �,.
• .r4.'`nio_ ..AY, ,•"' ,fit"'` .t. _ ,• .,
PP
Ao
Is
i •t•'i"w'rw :.mains :-3
/