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.