Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-09-13 C;7t-y C/e Approved 12/19/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES Special Meeting September 13, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Carolyn Peterson;Denise Rusoff;John Schroeder. Staff• H. Sieverding;C. Guttman;D. Cole;K.Ross;other interested parties. David Kay called the meeting to order and stated that there would not be a vote on the Final Environmental Impact Statement,as some of the media may have thought. He stated he was going to allow privilege of the floor limiting each individual to three minutes. He also stated that this was not a public hearing and that when the Planning Board does adopt the FEIS,there will be a period of at least 10 days that the document will be available for public review. The Board is not obligated to respond to comments made at this time. 1. Privilege of the Floor The following individuals made comments: Michael Robinson who represents Ithaca for Wal-Mart; Alicia Cox; Dooley Keefer, Dan Hoffman; Susan Matt; Mr. Nelson; Peter Rogers;Jill Brantley; Rubin Weiner, Scott Brown; Paul Glover and John Sullivan. 2. Review and discussion of draft of Final Environmental Impact Statement A. Discussion of traffic section of FEIS with Dan Cole,City Traffic Systems Manager Dan Cole stated that he prepared a traffic analysis for stores from 75,000 to 150,000 square feet and that he used the Highway Capacity Manual and the PASSER Program. His conclusions were that no intersection will operate at an unacceptable level. He stated that the PASSER Program tries to express overall delay in a range of seconds. There was some discussion about the table on page 23 and how much traffic would have to increase to drop down to Level C from Level B. He stated that the figure in section 14.4 came from NYSDOT and that there are no thresholds for system delay. He said the reason for this was because a traffic system will always vary. Kay asked whether there was a formula for efficiency. Cole was to provide that to him at a later time. Minutes of September 13, 1995 Meeting 2 Guttman asked if the PASSER Program was generally accepted. Cole stated that it is an engineering package,not a planning package, and that it should•provide a better way of looking at the overall traffic impacts. Schroeder stated that one public comment had to do with seasonal traffic, and he asked if there were any means of providing that information,but Cole stated there were no statistics on that. B. Review/discussion of other sections of FEIS The first topic of discussion was the schedule. Sieverding stated that the Board was in the process of trying to finalize the FEIS,and once the Board accepts this document, it gets filed with the DEC. Once it is filed, a Findings Statement needs to be prepared, and then a decision on the action can be made. The Board has the power to reject or grant with conditions. Guttman stated that under SEQR you must file an FEIS and then a Findings Statement. He stated that by preparing a Findings Statement, the Board is stating that they have received all information about environmental impacts and that these are the facts. Kay requested that Sieverding go through the changes he had made to the FEIS. There was discussion on sections 3.6 (Economic Impact)and sections 4.0 and 5.0. It was suggested that it be more consistent in its reference to store sizes proposed and separate combined answers to several issues and suggested actions. Regarding sections 4.0 and 5.0,it was suggested to address the impacts of each of the alternatives. The objective would be to continue revising the mitigation section,get Planning Board members' comments on other sections of the FEIS,incorporate the changes in the document and get the document to the Board for the next meeting. There were some discussions regarding changes to the maps. Kay stated he wanted to make sure Herman had the opportunity to ask questions of the Board so that he could proceed with what the Board wanted. There was a lengthy discussion about the four principles for site development guidelines. The first item discussed was the size of the planting islands in the parking lot and how the determination of twelve feet was made. Sieverding is to talk to Nina Bassuk at Cornell and find out if she and Jeff McDonald are willing to write a letter to the Board regarding their recommendations. There was some discussion on how specific the Board should be at this point. Guttman suggested they put in a range,for example 8-12 feet,and then state specifically what they are trying to accomplish and what the purpose is. He stated that when the Board gets to the site plan process it will get into the specifics. It was decided that the Minutes of September 13, 1995 Meeting 3 Board should state their goals, and Kay said emphasis should be on the effect and not specific numbers. There was some discussion on the buffer and possibly having more flexibility. Guttman suggested leaving the language as is but adding to it so some flexibility is provided while also insuring that the substitute parkland is protected. Peterson had some concerns about rewriting the guidelines the Board had agreed on previously. Guttman stated there was nothing improper about changing the wording--that these were only guidelines. Schroeder felt that the 75,000 square foot mitigation example should be identified as one possible way to meet the guidelines. Peterson suggested calling it a sample proposed mitigation. Rusoff agreed stating this was just one of a range of different plans that could be accepted, and proposed calling it the Mitigation Model. There was also discussion on the formatting and style of the fmal version of the document. It was suggested to indent some of the subheadings and clarify the headings by putting them in bold type. There was discussion regarding the description of Negundo Woods on page 28. It was stated there should be a much better description of what a critical environment area is and some language should be inserted there. DEC had some concerns about Cayuga Inlet Fisheries relevant to trout at the bottom of page 27; this should be addressed. Adams stated that Paul Glover's comment regarding school taxes needs to be addressed. Blumenthal had some concern about public access--page 45. She feels that people generally like park-and-ride lots and that they are viewed as positive. The reason for removing on-site park and ride lots should be explained in the FEIS. Kay stated that he would still like to reserve Wednesday,September 20, as a possible meeting date. He also stated there were no other dates between now and the next Planning Board Meeting. He suggested trying to meet on the day of the Planning Board Meeting at an earlier time. It was decided to have the regular Planning Board Meeting start at 7:00 p.m. and have the Special Meeting regarding the FEIS start at approximately 8:00 p.m. Minutes of September 13, 1995 Meeting 4 Blumenthal asked whether the Board expected to have the final copy of the FEIS at this meeting without any revisions or whether the Board would be going through this process again. Kay stated it was each Planning Board member's responsibility to get their comments to Herman so that Herman could incorporate all comments into the final version of the FEIS before he distributed it to the Board.