Loading...
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 /