Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-09-26 Nerk Approved 12/19/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES September 26, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal, Carolyn Peterson;Denise Rusoff,John Schroeder. Staff: H. Sieverding; C. Guttman;K.Ross;applicants; other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 2. Subdivision Approval A. Nichol Block Property-327 Elmira Road (Public Hearing/Final Approval) A public hearing was held. Blumenthal moved and Schroeder seconded a motion for Final Subdivision Approval. Carried unanimously. B. Jaegendorf-305-309 Brookfield Road (Environmental Review/Preliminary Approval) Sieverding stated that this was basically a lot line adjustment in which two owners transferred pieces of their lots in order to facilitate the construction of a driveway. The transaction occurred in the 1960's. Subdivision approval was never obtained. Blumenthal moved for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and Preliminary Approval. Schroeder seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. 3. Final Site Plan Approval A. Our Town Mall- 701-725 South Meadow Street A revised site plan and planting plan as well as samples of building materials were submitted for review by the Codes and Administration Committee. Adams had some concerns about potential parking problems and thought it would benefit the applicant if he tried to increase the number of parking spaces by revising the parking lot layout. There was some discussion about the width of the planting area between Wood Street Park Minutes of September 26, 1995 Meeting 2 and the proposed development. Sieverding stated that the County comments were only recommendations and that the Board did not have to follow their suggestions. The County recommendation did not specify what the width should be. Schroeder moved and Blumenthal seconded the following resolution for Conditional Final Site Plan Approval. WHEREAS, a site development plan for the development of Our Town Mall at 701-725 South Meadow Street has been granted Preliminary Approval by this Board at its 8-22-95 meeting, subsequent to the completion of an environmental review and public hearing,and WHEREAS, the site development plan has been modified to satisfy conditions of the Preliminary Approval,and WHEREAS, recommendations and comments from the County Planning Department and the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council indicate that further design development may be necessary,and City Planning staff concur that some of these recommendations are desirable development goals,now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Final Site Plan Approval for the first phase of the project be granted with the condition that the site development plan be further revised to include the following: 1. restriping of route 13, subject to the NYSDOT's approval,to provide the maximum possible left turn stacking; 2. pedestrian access to and from the park; 3. additional handicap parking spaces to be installed in the phase 2 development; 4. provision of snow storage area to ensure that the planting areas will not be used for snow storage; 5. reduced curve radii for the main entrance drive, subject to NYSDOT's approval; 6. provision of bus shelter and pull-off area, subject to the approval of NYSDOT; 7. species other than Honey Locust be used for plantings along Elmira Road; 8. applicant take a serious look at making the single-loaded parking bay double-loaded without affecting the landscaping plan. Carried unanimously. Minutes of September 26, 1995 Meeting 3 B. Kolar Machine,Inc. -407 Cliff Street (building addition and parking lot improvement) A revised site plan was submitted for review by the Codes and Administration Committee. While it included modifications that reflect most of the conditions of Preliminary Site Plan Approval,further revision of the planting plan and parking lay-out are to be submitted for final approval. Another revised site plan was submitted after the Codes meeting,but Adams suggested postponing final approval until Codes could see the changes. She stated the applicant could move ahead since they had the foundation permit and that there was no reason to wait on ordering the building. 4. Old Business A. Sage Hall Renovation -Report Adams stated that she and Schroeder attended the ILPC meeting where there was a presentation and discussion. The general discussion was about some of the concerns regarding exterior elevations. It was decided to have a joint meeting between Codes and some of the ILPC members with the architect and Cornell officials to resolve any differences regarding historic and visual concerns. The meeting was scheduled for Wednesday ,October 18. Adams stated that they went through the EAF at Codes,made a few revisions and discussed the process. She stated that the most important concern was the treatment of the facades,which is what they will talk about at the meeting on the 18th. Adams stated that the idea of the joint meeting is to try to discuss mutual areas of concern and come to an agreement on those areas so that when the Planning Board gives approval, it won't conflict with the ILPC giving a Certificate of Appropriateness. Eric Dicke from Cornell was present. He stated they did not want to get caught in a battle between two different committees so he supported the idea of a joint meeting. 5. Zoning Appeals Report There were no zoning appeals. 6. Reports No reports were made. Minutes of September 26, 1995 Meeting 4 7. Approval of Minutes Approval of the Minutes was postponed to the next meeting. SPECIAL MEETING (Continuation of the September 13, 1995 meeting) 1. Discussion and approval of Final Environmental Impact Statement-Wal-Mart Kay asked how many Board members had more than one or two changes to the FEIS. Schroeder stated that he had a small number of changes, and Blumenthal and Kay handed out copies of their proposed changes. Kay stated that there would be no public comment,but when the Planning Board adopts the FEIS there will be a period of at least 10 days in which the public may submit written statements to the Board. Schroeder suggested that the Board concentrate on going through the substantive changes rather than the grammatical ones. There were some changes that both Blumenthal and Kay had requested, so there was a brief break to come up with some acceptable language for those items. Kay decided that the Board would go through the FEIS five pages at a time and ask for comments from Board members on those pages. The Board requested 30 revisions to the FEIS and instructed staff to incorporate these revisions into the FEIS. The FEIS shall be filed as expeditiously as possible. Schroeder moved and Adams seconded the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED,that the Planning and Development Board accepts the FEIS in its present state as modified by the additions made tonight,and be it further RESOLVED,that Sieverding is directed to make additional non-substantive grammatical changes suggested by Planning Board members,make copies and file the FEIS as expeditiously as possible. Blumenthal made a statement saying that she could not support the Final Environmental Impact Statement. While she supported the idea of a mitigation plan with guidelines,she did not agree with the mitigation plan as written because of the degree to which it proscribes development of the Wal-Mart site. She disagreed that the impact on the view from Buttermilk Falls State Park would be significantly large enough to merit keeping the building entirely out of the viewshed. She said that the board is bringing excessive standards to bear regarding the continuous ten to twelve foot planting strips in the parking lot and felt that the buffer between the project and substitute parkland should be entirely on the north side of the substitute parkland line. Minutes of September 26, 1995 Meeting 5 Schroeder stated he disagreed with Blumenthal that there is not a visual impact. He said he believes this is the main issue together with the issue of substitute parkland. He stated the document does not advocate the Mitigation Model, but analyzes the potential environmental impacts of this sample. The vote was 5-1 in favor with Blumenthal voting against it. There was some discussion on the timeframe. Guttman stated that the Board has 30 days after the filing of the FEIS to prepare a Findings Statement and make a decision on the site plan application. Kay stated that the Board would review any comments made by the public in writing within the 30-day period. Blumenthal requested a clarification on what the Findings Statement was to entail. Sieverding stated that there was a specific section in SEQR that describes what needs to go into the Findings Statement and that he would get copies of that out to Board members. A meeting was scheduled for Wednesday,October 11, at 8:00 a.m. to go over the Findings Statement. Staff will send out a notice. Planning Board members were to provide staff with a list of dates and times of their availability during the month of October.