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.