Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board 9.26.2016 Minutes.pdf1 Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board Meeting #66 Monday, September 26, 2016 Village Hall – 7:00 pm Minutes Present: Planning Board Members Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Leijonhufvud, J. Milder, R. Segelken. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski, Attorney R. Marcus, Trustee J. Marshall K. Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects (TWLA) T. Covell, HOLT Architects P. Levesque, HOLT Architects T. Votaw, Cayuga Medical Associates T. Ciaschi, Corners Community Shopping Center A. Dake, SRF Associates T. Faulkner, Fisher Associates Members of the Public Item 1 – Meeting called to order • Chair F. Cowett opened the meeting at 7:01 pm. • Chair F. Cowett noted that M. McMurry resigned from the Board and thanked her for her service. He welcomed J. Milder as a full member of the Planning Board. Item 2 – August 22, 2016 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the August 22, 2016 meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: J. Leijonhufvud RESOLUTION No. 198 APPROVING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2016 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the August 22, 2016 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, G. Gillespie, J. Leijonhufvud, R. Segelken Abstained- J. Milder Opposed- None 2 Item 3 – August 30, 2016 Minutes • The Board reviewed the minutes of the August 30, 2016 special meeting. Motion: R. Segelken Second: J. Leijonhufvud RESOLUTION No. 199 APPROVING MINUTES OF AUGUST 30, 2016 RESOLVED, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the August 30, 2016 special meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, R. Segelken Abstained- G. Gillespie, J. Milder Opposed- None Item 4 – Public Comment • No members of the public wished to comment. Item 5 –Site Plan Review – Corners Community Shopping Center Medical Office Building Project (CCMOB) • G. Gillespie recused himself from review of the project as he is an employee of HOLT Architects. • Chair F. Cowett stated the schedule for the meeting; T. Faulkner, Fisher Associates, will report to the Board the findings from his review of the SRF Associates traffic study report; continuation of the public hearing from the August 22, 2016 will follow; members of the public with questions for T. Faulkner are requested to ask those questions during the public hearing; the project design team can then make a presentation if they wish to do so; when members of the public have finished making comments and asking questions, the Board will close the public hearing and ask questions of T. Faulkner and the project design team; the Board then intends to commence a SEQRA review of the project; if the Board makes a negative SEQRA declaration, the project will be submitted to the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals to consider at the ZBA’s October 19, 2016 meeting the two area variances requested by the applicant for the project; if the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the variances, the project will return to the Planning Board at its October 24, 2016 meeting for consideration of site plan approval. • T. Faulkner, Fisher Associates, introduced himself to the Board and members of the public; he has reviewed the traffic counts in the SRF traffic study and considers them 3 accurate; the traffic counts represent traffic volume for the peak hour at each intersection and therefore signify a worst case condition which is a conservative methodology; SRF used background growth rates of 0.25%; he would have used a background growth rate of 1% based on longitudinal traffic data from streets adjacent to the shopping center, but using a 1% growth rate would not change analysis results; estimates of vehicle trips to be generated by the project are accurately based on the ITE methodology; there are some minor inconsistencies in volumes, but these do not affect conclusions; some intersections adjacent to the shopping center operate poorly; some communities accept F rated intersections because they do not want higher traffic speeds nor wish to change the character of the community; he worries that an increase in intersection waiting time may aggravate driver impatience and lead to an increase in accidents although there is no certainty that this would happen at these intersections; the ULI shared parking analysis used by SRF was an appropriate methodology; he would have liked to have seen SRF collect existing parking count data for comparison with ULI modeled estimates; Chair F. Cowett provided him with some observed parking data he had collected which showed an average of 140 cars parked at the shopping center during the course of a week; based on this data, SRF overestimated existing parking demand and parking capacity should not be an issue for the project; in his opinion, the shopping center’s Pleasant Grove Road driveway is too close to the Hanshaw/Pleasant Grove intersection and he would recommend moving the driveway further away from the intersection if possible; he would also recommend eliminating four or five spaces from the southern row of parking adjacent to E. Upland Road and replacing these spaces with green space to improve visibility and safety; the current site plan curtails ordinary vehicle access between the shopping center and Carriage House Apartments; it is generally considered good engineering practice to provide as much inter-parcel connectivity as possible to reduce traffic on adjacent roads; while SEQRA recommends a 100 vehicle per hour threshold for a significant increase in traffic, in his opinion significance is in the eyes of the beholder; adding forty or fifty cars to an intersection can bump up delays, but this increase must be considered on a case by case basis and what the community is willing to accept. • J. Leijonhufvud asked about the project curtailing access between the shopping center and Pleasant Grove Road. • T. Faulkner replied that ideally he would like to see the roadway reestablished so as to provide more of an outlet to Pleasant Grove Road; he would also recommend limiting cars exiting onto Pleasant Grove Road to a right hand turn only. • J. Leijonhufvud asked if Chemung Bank parking and other parking adjacent to Pleasant Grove Road should be considered separately from the rest of the shopping center. • T. Faulkner replied that all parking areas should be considered together as part of a shared parking lot. • Chair F. Cowett thanked T. Faulkner for his review of the SRF traffic study. 4 • Resumption of the public hearing which was adjourned at the August 22, 2016 Planning Board meeting commenced at 7:24 pm. • M. Mindlin, 112 Midway Road, asked who makes the final decision for this project and whether the Board of Trustees is involved in that decision. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that the Zoning Board of Appeals makes decisions on any variances sought by the project and the Planning Board makes the final decision about the project in site plan review; the Board of Trustees is not involved in these decisions. • M. Mindlin asked about the philosophy or basis for accepting the project for consideration and potentially approving the project. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that, when he receives an application for a project of this kind, he looks to see if the proposed project is an allowable use under current zoning; the project as proposed is an allowable use under current zoning. • Chair F. Cowett replied that, in considering a project for site plan approval, the Planning Board follows Article IX, Section 24, III, 1 of current Village law pertaining to site plan review in the Village’s multiple housing and commercial zoning districts; this section instructs the Planning Board to consider the following factors in site plan review: a. The location and site of the use; b. The nature and intensity of the operation involved; c. The size and topography of the site in relation to it; d. The location of the site in respect to the roads giving access to it; e. The provisions for parking; f. The relation of the size of the building and lot to the parking area; g. Traffic and noise generated by the proposed use; h. Landscaping; i. Architectural features; j. Location and dimension of buildings; k. Impact of the proposed use on adjacent land uses; l. Effect on the environment; m. Effect on infrastructure and existing Village services, including sewer, water, drainage and solid waste; n. Any other reasonable factors that will promote the safety of the proposed use and the orderly development of the Multiple Housing or Commercial District; o. Effect on population density, if any; p. Any other factors reasonably related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. • Chair F. Cowett added that, when conducting site plan review in 2015 for a sorority proposed for Wyckoff Road, the Planning Board discussed consistency with the goals, 5 objectives, and recommendations contained in the Village’s comprehensive plan when considering factor (p) above. • M. Mindlin asked how many parking spaces the Village requires to be provided by the project. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that Village code does not specify a certain number of parking spaces to be provided. • Attorney R. Marcus read from Article IX, Section XIV of current Village law: “Every non-residential structure, commercial, or otherwise, shall provide off-street garage or parking space sufficient to accommodate the cars of employees and the number of cars anticipated to be attracted by the facilities of such structure at any time.” • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross added that, when the Chemung Bank project was approved, the bank agreed to provide a specific number of parking spaces. • M. Mindlin asked whether the proposed two story building is too much of a break with the existing one story buildings in the shopping center. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that many of the buildings in the shopping center, if not a majority of the buildings, are already two story buildings. • M. Midlin asked about increased road costs to the Village associated with the project. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that there are no road costs to the Village directly associated with the project; however, irrespective of this project, the Board of Trustees may wish to consider making capital improvements to adjacent intersections and roads given existing conditions documented in the traffic study report. • M. Midlin asked about requirements for provision of green space. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that there are no specific requirements for provision of green space and that green space is not defined in current Village code; there are, however, limitations on lot coverage percentage. • Chair F. Cowett asked M. Midlin if, when referencing green space, she was thinking about lawn or about green space that functions as more than just lawn. • M. Midlin replied that, when referencing green space, she was thinking more along the lines of a public park. • R. Bors, 121 Texas Lane, read the following statement: 6 • E. Lambiase, 406 E. Upland Road, stated that the project involves a large building with a big footprint; she suggested to the Board that, instead of relying on parking demand estimates for employees and patients, it should examine parking conditions and count cars at the Guthrie facility at 1780 Hanshaw Road; it is sometimes difficult to find parking there. • B. Eden, 147 N. Sunset Drive, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, stated that the proposed medical office building is a classic infill project and a remedy for urban sprawl; questions were asked at the August Planning Board hearing about why this project is not being built near other medical office buildings located on Warren Road; the Warren Road site is occupied by wetlands and is close to Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology whereas the Corners Community shopping center is already a disturbed site; existing facilities close to population centers should be utilized as a way to reduce vehicle miles travelled; greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed new building should be calculated and negative environmental impacts reduced; has CMA considered non-fossil fuel energy generation and reducing the building’s climate footprint? • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that he does not know specific plans to generate non-fossil fuel energy at the proposed building, but a new New York State building code will come into effect in October 2016; this new code will be a significant improvement in reducing reliance on fossil fuels and must be implemented in the construction of any new building. • M. Midlin asked B. Eden if he is concerned about the generation of medical waste at the proposed new building. 7 • B. Eden replied that he is not concerned as medical waste is well-regulated. • M. Midlin asked B. Eden if fewer vehicle miles are travelled by providing destinations closer to where people live. • B. Eden replied that this is so. • J. O’Leary, HPM Tech Services, 903 Hanshaw Road, asked if the prospect of increased municipal tax revenues associated with a project is a factor in considering whether to approve a project? • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross replied that the prospect of increased municipal tax revenues has never been a factor in considering a project for approval in the Village of Cayuga Heights. • Attorney R. Marcus agreed with Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross; some communities consider tax revenues when considering a project for approval, but most do not. • C. Hernandez, 15 Spruce Lane, stated his concern about the project creating increased traffic on N. Triphammer Road and especially the percentage increase of that traffic; he already experiences difficulty getting in or out of Spruce Lane due to traffic on N. Triphammer Road and also experiences traffic backups on Pleasant Grove Road at the intersection with Hanshaw Road. • A. Watkins, 11 Lowell Place, stated that the project is inconsistent with the Village’s comprehensive plan; the plan advocates building a sense of community in the Community Corners area and the project does not do this. • D. Nash, Flower Fashions, 903 Hanshaw Road, stated that he and most other business in the shopping center support the project; he has seen a decline in the number of people walking into his store; there needs to be more going on at Community Corners to attract people there; he has spoken to many shopping center business owners who believe that the project would improve their businesses; he asked that consideration be given to the contribution these businesses make to the community. • M. Midlin stated that inadequate public notice about this project has been provided to Village residents and many residents are unaware of it. • Chair F. Cowett replied that the project has been under consideration since March 2016; the Planning Board has tried very hard to facilitate public awareness about the project and to keep the public informed; it has posted all documentation related to the project on the Planning Board’s webpage; the Village has sent out eNewsBlasts about the project; the project design team conducted two public outreach meetings at the shopping center; the Ithaca Journal published an article in July 2016 about the project; he asked M. Midlin what more she believes should have been done. • M. Midlin replied that the Village could have sent out a mailing about the project to all Village residents. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that if the Village was to send out a mailing about this project to all Village residents, it would be required to send mailings for all projects to all Village residents. 8 • Attorney R. Marcus stated that there is no legal mechanism for singling out one project from all others with respect to public notice and treating it any differently than the rest. • M. Midlin stated that other neighboring municipalities do a better job of keeping their residents informed. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that his firm represents nearly all of the Villages in Tompkins County; he is therefore very familiar with these municipalities and strongly disagrees that any of these municipalities does a better job of keeping its residents informed than does Cayuga Heights. • Chair F. Cowett invited any members of the project design team who wished to speak to do so. • K. Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, stated that shopping center business owners provide services to Village residents including residents who choose to walk there, but many businesses are struggling; the business owners believe the proposed medical office building will make a big difference in their businesses as an anchor tenant in the shopping center. • T. Ciaschi, Corners Community Shopping Center owner, stated that shopping center rent rolls are flat; he believes the shopping center is dying and referenced the letter from George Frantz in support of the project which was read into the record at the Planning Board’s August 22, 2016 meeting; he presented signed petitions in support of the project collected from several locations in the shopping center and also from Island Health & Fitness in the City of Ithaca. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 • C. Scheele, 117 Randolph Road, stated that she has seen many changes in the Village during the years she has lived there; most of these changes have been good, but she is worried about the project and parking at the shopping center; she does not want the shopping center parking lot to resemble the Island Health & Fitness parking lot downtown; she is also worried about the scope of the traffic increase and whether this will worsen exiting Winthrop Drive onto N. Triphammer Road; she does not believe that Gadabout is a realistic option for patients visiting a medical office building. • D. Nash stated that he does not currently see parking problems at the shopping center, although the lot outside his store sometimes gets rather full when meetings take place at the Ithaca Board of Realtors office. • A. Dake, SRF Associates, addressed parking at the shopping center; estimated existing parking demand is 171 spaces and 179 spaces if bank parking is included; the average existing parking demand based on data collected by Chair F. Cowett is 141 spaces; shared parking looks to provide a 10 to 15% buffer; estimated peak parking demand (December) is estimated to be 93% of proposed parking capacity. • Chair F. Cowett stated reservations about using average parking demand to estimate needed parking capacity since average parking demand does not account for ranges or peaks in parking demand. • T. Faulkner replied that traffic engineers do not design for peak conditions which may only occur four or five times a year; designing for peak conditions would create excess capacity for the rest of the year when peak conditions do not exist. • J. Leijonhufvud referenced the comment made by B. Eden about greenhouse gas emissions associated with the new building and asked if the project design team has addressed reductions in the building’s carbon footprint. • K. Michaels replied that the design team has not gotten into this yet, but has been focused instead on site plan review. • P. Levesque, HOLT Architects, replied that CMA projects generally go green, but no decision has yet been made to seek LEED certification nor has the building’s carbon footprint been calculated. • T. Ciaschi noted that solar panels on the shopping center’s Island Health & Fitness facility generate 58 kilowatts, making it one of the larger local installations of its kind. • Chair F. Cowett entered into the record seven emails and one letter he has received since the Board’s August 22, 2016 meeting pertaining to this project. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • No other members of the public wishing to speak, the Board considered a motion to close the public hearing. Motion: J. Leijonhufvud Second: R. Segelken RESOLUTION No. 200 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLVED, that the public hearing regarding the site plan review for the proposed Medical Office Building project at Corners Community Shopping Center be closed. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None • The public hearing was closed at 8:27 pm. • Planning Board members proceeded to ask questions of T. Faulkner and the project design team. • J. Leijonhufvud asked T. Faulkner whether, if his reservations were not addressed and his recommendations were not followed, he would have significant problems with the project. • T. Faulkner replied that, in general, no, he would not have significant problems with the project; the project in its current form is not making anything significantly worse. • J. Leijonhufvud asked T. Faulkner if his answer applied to traffic and parking. • T. Faulkner replied that, as long as the Village can live with its F rated intersections, the project will not make conditions significantly worse. • R. Segelken asked T. Faulkner for his opinion as to how the Planning Board should answer SEQRA Part 2 Question 5 concerning whether the traffic increase associated with the project will create a significantly adverse environmental impact. • T. Faulkner replied that he cannot really say how the Planning Board should answer this SEQRA question; the Board should ask itself whether the Village can live with a possible increase in delay of 10 to 20 seconds at some of its intersections; 10 to 20 seconds would typically be regarded as a minor increase in delay; intersection ratings are not going from an A to a D; he recommends that the Board consider the actual change in time. • R. Segelken asked T. Faulkner about the potential impact of an increased number of cars on N. Triphammer Road. • T. Faulkner replied that limited data was provided on traffic queueing; however, traffic is variable and, if the increase is limited to one car every 10 minutes, it will probably not be noticed. 26 • R. Segelken asked T. Faulkner about his recommendation to restore ordinary vehicle connectivity between the shopping center and Carriage House Apartments. • T. Faulkner replied that it is generally good engineering practice to provide vehicle cross access between parcels, but such access may depend on an agreement between the parcel owners. • A. Dake disputed that there would be benefit to vehicle cross access between the shopping center and Carriage House Apartments; the current vehicular connection is frequently used by drivers to cut through the parcels to access Pleasant Grove Road, often at high speed, which poses a potential hazard to apartment residents. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that he has never heard any concerns from Carriage House Apartments about vehicles cutting through that parcel at high speed to access Pleasant Grove Road. • A. Dake stated that it is not always good engineering practice to provide vehicle cross access between parcels, especially when one parcel is residential and another parcel is commercial. • K. Michaels stated that vehicle cross access between the shopping center and Carriage House Apartments facilitates abuse of the shopping center’s dumpsters by apartment residents, especially at the end of the academic year. • R. Segelken agreed that vehicle cross access facilitates dumpster abuse, but stated his interest in reducing vehicular traffic passing through the Hanshaw/Pleasant Grove intersection; he asked if the Board would be able to impose restoration of vehicle cross access between the shopping center and Carriage House Apartments as a condition of site plan approval. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that the Board cannot impose a condition outside the applicant’s control. • R. Segelken asked about the project’s action plan to reduce vehicular use by medical building employees and whether this would also apply to patients. • T. Votaw, Cayuga Medical Associates, replied that the action plan to reduce vehicular use would not necessarily apply to patients; his priority for patients is to get them to the building as safely as possible, but he is willing to encourage patients to use public transportation; he is unlikely to offer subsidies for building employees to use mass transit as he would then be obligated to offer subsidies to all CMA employees. • R. Segelken asked T. Votaw if he will be discussing these matters with TCAT. • T. Votaw replied that, yes, he would be. • Planning Board members had no further questions for T. Faulkner or the project design team. • SEQRA review for the project commenced at 8:50 pm. • The applicant provided Part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. 27 28 29 • The Board reviewed the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1. • Chair F. Cowett suggested to the Board that, with respect to Question 5b, Is the proposed action consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, the Village’s comprehensive plan calls for the re-invigoration of the Corners Community area as the economic and social hub of the Village; although the plan also recommends encouraging provision of everyday neighborhood retail services and housing as part of mixed use development, a medical office building is a permitted use under current zoning and therefore, in his opinion, for the purposes of this SEQRA review, the project is on balance consistent with the Village’s comprehensive plan. • Chair F. Cowett further advised the Board that, with respect to Question 8a, Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels, he has emailed with the NYS DEC about the meaning of “substantial” and been told by the DEC that, for a medical office building, a threshold of 100 peak hour vehicle trips per day for either the early morning or late afternoon peak hour determines whether an increase is substantial; since estimates for peak hour site generated vehicle trips by the applicant’s traffic study and confirmed by the Board’s traffic consultant are less than 100, in his opinion, this question can correctly be answered “NO.” • The Board accepted the applicant’s responses to the questions in Part 1; it then began reviewing the questions contained in Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. • J. Milder asked Chair F. Cowett to discuss the implications of a finding of moderate to large adverse environmental impact for any questions in Part II. 30 • Chair F. Cowett replied that a finding of a moderate to large adverse environmental impact for one or more questions in Part II would trigger a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from the applicant unless the applicant has provided mitigation for those impacts; for example, in the Board’s 2015 site plan review of a proposed sorority on Wyckoff Road, the Board found moderate to large adverse environmental impact for three Part II questions, but also found that mitigation measures proposed by the applicant were sufficient to reduce this impact to a small adverse environmental impact; as a result, the Board was able to make a negative declaration of significant adverse environmental impact for the project and a DEIS was not required from the applicant. • Attorney R. Marcus confirmed that, were the Board to make a positive declaration of significant adverse environmental impact for the CCMOB project, this would trigger a DEIS from the applicant; because the traffic increase associated with this project would probably be the cause of a positive declaration, the scope of a DEIS would likely focus on providing additional information on traffic conditions and proposing alternatives; the applicant has already provided a traffic study, it is not clear what else a DEIS could provide, and any proposed alternatives would need to be reasonable and feasible. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that the Village is in the beginning stages of discussing a traffic improvement project in the Community Corners area, but did not know whether this should factor into the Board’s answers for Part II. • Chair F. Cowett replied that there is no certainty as to when or if any such traffic improvements will happen and so the Board should not consider them when answering the questions in Part II. • The Board began its consideration of the questions in Part II by answering Question 5, Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? • The Board agreed that the project would not adversely affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway. • The Board then discussed the project’s impact on the existing level of traffic and a vote was taken; Chair F. Cowett, J. Milder, and R. Segelken voted that the project’s impact would be small; J. Leijonhufvud voted that the project’s impact would be moderate. • The Board proceeded to answer the remaining questions in Part II and agreed to include explanatory statements pertaining to Questions 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Part III of the SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form. 31 Question 1 Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? Current land use is commercial, a medical office building is a permitted use under current zoning for the Village’s commercial zoning district, and a use variance is not required. The project is compliant with current zoning requirements for building height and setbacks, but 32 does require two area variances, one for lot coverage and one for distance between buildings. Lot coverage would increase from 17.18% to 20.64%, which represents a 20.14% increase from current lot coverage as permitted by a variance previously granted by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and a 37.60% increase from the 15% lot coverage permitted for the Village’s commercial zoning district under current zoning. A reduction in building separation from 60 to 21 feet, a 65% decrease from current zoning, is also being proposed. These variances represent meaningful changes on a percentage basis and will be considered at a later date by the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals. The reduction in building separation is unlikely to have much environmental impact and stormwater features in the project design can be expected to mitigate the most likely source of any adverse environmental impact created by increased lot coverage. Therefore, the environmental impact of the project’s conflict with existing zoning regulations would likely be small. Question 2 Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? Current land use is commercial, a medical office building is a permitted use under current zoning for the Village’s commercial zoning district, and the location of the new medical office building is occupied by an office building. Thus, any change in the character of use would be small. The footprint of the proposed new building is a 200% increase from the footprint of both the one story office building and a one story bank to be demolished. In addition, the proposed new building is two stories versus the one story structures to be demolished and there will be increases in vehicle traffic, parking demand, and pedestrian activity on site. As a result, intensity of land use will increase. However, stormwater features in the project design can be expected to mitigate the most likely source of any adverse environmental impact created by increased land use intensity and the environmental impact from a change in land use intensity would likely be small. Question 3 Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? The proposed new building’s design is intended to reflect the design aesthetic of existing shopping center buildings. Its height meets current zoning requirements. Current land use is commercial, adjoining land uses are primarily commercial or residential, and a medical office building is a permitted use under current zoning for the Village’s commercial zoning district. The proposed new building’s weekday hours of operation, location in the shopping center’s interior, and its use of dark sky compliant lighting are likely to reduce potential conflicts with adjacent residential properties. Based on these environmental criteria, the proposed action is unlikely to impair the character or quality of the existing community from an environmental standpoint and its environmental impact on the character and quality of the existing community is likely to be small. 33 Question 5 Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? The project will not adversely impact existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking, or walkways. It will, however, increase vehicular traffic on site and in adjacent public streets. A traffic study commissioned by the project estimated the project would generate 53(26) vehicles entering the shopping center during the AM(PM) peak hours respectively and 14(67) vehicles exiting the shopping center during the AM(PM) peak hours which, following NYS DEC criteria, does not comprise a “substantial” increase in traffic. The traffic study also analyzed capacity levels of nearby intersections and gave several intersections failing grades, but concluded the project would not result in significantly adverse traffic impacts to these intersections. A peer review of the traffic study commissioned by the Planning Board found that “additional traffic due to the proposed development will further exacerbate already poor operating conditions” for the failing intersections. The NYS DEC advises that, even if an increase in traffic is not “substantial,” a moderate to large project impact may occur if, due to current conditions, the adjacent roads and intersections do not have the capacity to handle that increase. It is unclear to the Board whether adjacent roads and intersections, and especially intersections given failing or near failing grades by the project’s traffic study, have the capacity to handle the increased traffic generated by this project. The project’s traffic study indicates that they do and the peer review does not explicitly contradict this. The project has proposed some measures to reduce single occupancy vehicle use: provide bicycle racks on site for patients and employees; discuss the bus stops with TCAT to ensure the best service for patients; discuss the project with Gadabout to ensure the best service for patients; and encourage employees to use public transit, car pool and drop off. It is unclear what effect these measures will have or that there are additional reasonable, feasible alternatives available to the project to mitigate further the increased traffic impacts. In balance, it is fair to assume that a potential exists for some adverse environmental impact due to the increase in vehicle traffic generated by this project, but, based on the preponderance of evidence, the Board cannot confirm this impact rises to the level of a moderate to large adverse change over and beyond existing levels. Therefore, after considering criteria suggested by the NYS DEC for conducting SEQRA review, which are not the same criteria to be considered by the Planning Board under local law in conducting site plan review, the Board concludes that any adverse environmental impact created by the project’s increase in traffic would be small. 34 Motion: R. Segelken Second: J. Milder RESOLUTION No. 201 TO DETERMINE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. RESOLVED, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Planning Board has determined that the proposed Medical Office Building project at Corners Community Shopping Center will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts under SEQRA. Aye votes – Chair F. Cowett, J. Leijonhufvud, J. Milder, R. Segelken Opposed- None • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross asked whether the Board’s SEQRA determination obligated the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals to take a specific course of action when considering the project’s request for two variances. • Attorney R. Marcus replied that any action taken by the ZBA would be independent of the Planning Board’s SEQRA determination; SEQRA has a narrow environmental scope; the ZBA has a different narrow scope and considers different environmental criteria than those specified in SEQRA; the Planning Board has much wider latitude than the ZBA when considering a project for approval in site plan review. Item 5 – Other Business • The Board’s next meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2016. • The Board discussed scheduling a public hearing for the proposed subdivision at 1010 Triphammer Road; it decided to schedule the public hearing for November 28, 2016. 35 Item 6 – Adjourn • Meeting adjourned at 9:52 pm.