Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-10-24 /iv 0/P7 Approved 12/27/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES October 24, 1995 Present: David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal; Carolyn Peterson;Denise Rusoff;John Schroeder. Staff: H. Sieverding,H.Matthys Van Cort; C. Guttman,K. Ross;applicants;media;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor There were no comments from the floor. 2. Subdivision Review A. Jagendorf-305-309 Brookfield Road -Public Hearing/Final Approval Van Cort stated that this was a lot line adjustment which was given preliminary approval last month. A public hearing was held. Schroeder moved and Rusoff seconded a motion for final subdivision approval. Carried unanimously. 3. Site Plan Review A. Kolar Machine,Inc. -407 Cliff Street(building addition and parking lot improvement)- Final Approval Van Cort stated that the applicant has submitted drawings which incorporate the improvements that were suggested by staff and approved by the Codes Committee. It was noted that the proposed relocation of the curb to the south of the building was not to be constructed as a part of this job and was annotated on the drawings as a"possible future parking lot improvement". Schroeder moved and Adams seconded the following motion for final site plan approval. WHEREAS, a site development plan for the expansion of Kolar Machine Inc. was submitted for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS, the proposal was granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval by this Board at its 8-22-95 meeting, and WHEREAS, further design development of the site plan has resulted in an increase in planting areas between the development site and Cliff Street, Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 2 mitigating the development's impact on the visual character of the neighborhood, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that Final Site Plan Approval be granted, based on the revised site plan reviewed by the Codes and Administration Committee at its 10-16-95 meeting,for the site development of Kolar Machine Inc. at 407 Cliff Street. Carried unanimously. 4. New Business A. Discussion of Off-Street Parking- Revision of Zoning Ordinance This issue was postponed until next month. 5. Zoning Appeals Report Adams stated that appeal 2279 was a request for a special permit which the Board was required to vote on. Adams moved to recommend approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Carried unanimously. Adams stated that appeal 2277 was an area variance that the Codes Committee felt deserved a comment. She said this was a reconfiguration of the roof structure on the former Cosmopolitan Club,and Codes recommended that a pitched roof would be appropriate as long as it was not visible from the street. Appeal 2280 is an area variance at the Calendar Clock Building which is in an R-2b zone. The concern of the Codes Committee was that the owner has to come back for a variance each time there is a new tenant, so they felt it might be time to reexamine the zoning restrictions on the property. Codes recommended the variance but suggested Common Council look at the property to possibly consider rezoning. Adams stated that appeal 2281 is an area variance relating to parking. Codes recommended that the parking requirements be carefully considered and appropriately enforced. Approval of the following report was moved by Adams, seconded by Schroeder and passed unanimously. Review of subject appeals by this Board has determined that none involve matters of concern with regard to long-range or area-wide planning at this Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 3 time, and may be acted on as found appropriate by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Board submits the following recommendations and comments for BZA deliberation on subject appeals: Appeal 2277 (Area Variance to height regulations to permit construction of pitched roof at 301 Bryant Ave., in an R-3a zone): In consideration of the unique characteristics of this property,the former Cosmopolitan Club,this Board urges that any approval action be conditioned on the new roof's not being visible from street level in the adjacent blocks (200-300 blocks of Bryant Ave., 100 block of Harvard Pl.; 200 block of Delaware Ave.). This might call for a lower roof pitch than proposed, or use of a hipped roof so that gable ends are not visible. Appeal 2279 (Special Permit for B&B home at 228 Wood St.,in an R-2b zone): The proposal appears to meet all applicable requirements; this Board recommends that the Special Permit be granted. Appeal 2280 (Use Variances to permit four new tenants in the Calendar Clock Factory,in an R-2b zone): The proposed uses seem in keeping with the present and previous uses of the property. This Board feels that it would be appropriate to re-examine the zoning restrictions on this property,and to consider the possibility of changes that will continue to protect the neighborhood while making the process of changing tenants less complicated. Appeal 2281 (Area Variance to permit a student-oriented social support organization at 604 E. Buffalo/305 Stewart Ave.,in an R-2a zone): The parking requirements should be carefully considered and appropriately enforced. 6. Reports There were no reports given. 7. Approval of Minutes Approval of the Minutes was postponed until next month. Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 4 8. Wal*Mart A. Approval of Findings Statement Kay began by commenting about where the Board was in the whole process. He stated there may be two phases of tonight's meeting: (1) an attempt to bring the environmental review to a close; and (2) to resume the public hearing on site plan review. Regarding the first phase,he stated that the Board has already closed the public hearing on the environmental review of the project He explained that the Board was deadlocked at the last meeting regarding the issue of approval of the Findings Statement. He said that the Board has received voluminous mail that addresses the FEIS, which they have already adopted, and he believes that all the members of the Board have reviewed these letters. He stated that the second phase will be to continue the public hearing on the site plan review which was opened earlier this year, but that the Board would not make a decision on that action until the meeting on Thursday, October 26, at 1:00 p.m. Kay made some comments about the differences between environmental review law and site plan review law stating that these are different laws with different criteria and standards. He stated that site plan review law says that the Planning and Development Board shall be governed by all laws and ordinances and that environmental review is only one of several laws against which this project must be tested. He stated that the Board cannot approve a project that would violate any other laws. Schroeder handed out copies of the Findings Statement with his suggested changes. Kay stated the Board should go through the document page by page. Blumenthal also provided some language to be inserted in the traffic section. After going through all of the changes,Kay said he was ready to submit a slightly modified version of the motion he had made at the last meeting. He proceeded to read through the Certification of Findings to Approve with Conditions. Schroeder stated that a vote to adopt the Findings Statement does not approve the site plan. Kay moved and Rusoff seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, the Board has taken a hard look at the environmental impacts of the Wal-Mart Department Store proposed by East Coast Development Company to be located at 398-40 Elmira Road, and Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 5 WHEREAS,this hard look includes consideration of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS,the Planning Board by adopting this Findings Statement does not make any comment on the merits of the applicant's proposed plan relative to the Site Development Plan Review process, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Board, as lead agency for the environmental review, adopts the attached Findings Statement and authorizes David Kay,as Chair of the Board,to execute the Certification form attached to the Findings Statement. Blumenthal stated she had some comments to make and asked that a complete transcript of her statement be incorporated into the meeting Minutes. She repeated the comments she made at that last meeting and then proceeded with some additional comments. Her entire statement is as follows: First I would like to ask that a complete transcript of the statement I will be reading this evening be entered into the minutes of this meeting. My decisions regarding this project and my statements about it are complicated ones,and consequently I would like that these comments appear in the official record of the meeting so there is absolute clarity about what I said. The following statements are those that I made last week at the first vote on the Findings Statement. I am repeating them because not many people were in attendance at the morning meeting and there is confusion about my position. I would also like them to appear in the official record. First,I do not agree with the conclusions drawn in the Findings Statement. There are omissions of information, such as that relevant to Buttermilk Falls State Park and there are overstatements that exaggerate the impacts relative to the visual and aesthetic impacts. The board has intentionally left out information in the FEIS and in the Findings Statement so that the impacts of this project look worse than they are. With regard to Buttermilk Falls State Park, the board has omitted information about usage of the park that was available that showed that only a small portion of people using the park walk on the gorge Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 6 hiking trail. This has already led to erroneous conclusions by members of the public about the impact of the project on tourism in 'the county. Therefore,I do not believe this document is balanced in the presentation of facts and if I could vote on just this document,I would vote against it. I find all of this objectionable. Following are my comments for this evening: I am voting against the resolution to approve the findings statement because the sample mitigation model places limits on the project such that Wal-Mart may not be able to or will not choose to build a store on the site. My next remarks will explain more about the above points. I do not believe that there will be a substantial negative impact on Buttermilk Falls State Park from this project. I believe that the primary focus of persons who visit the park is to view the natural beauty of the gorge and the waterfall, to hike the trails, to picnic, to swim in the falls, or to stay at the campsites. In addition,my observations along the trail this summer suggest that the large proportion of the hikers are focused on the trail and the waterfall, and do not look out over the valley. Because of these reasons,I do not believe that there will be a significant impact on the park or loss of tourism in this county. I think the overwhelming experience of seeing the gorge will far outweigh any changes that may occur in the view of the valley from the park. There will be other impacts on the park related to lighting,but these can, and should be,mitigated by the applicant. One of my difficulties with the way the FEIS and the Findings Statement were written is what I view as the over emphasis placed upon the impact on hikers along the gorge trail. A major construct in the document is that the view from the gorge trail will be significantly impacted such that a full canopy of trees must be created in the parking lot of the development. Another site development guideline proposes that the entire building be out of the viewshed from the trail. I believe that the board is focusing only on the impact on the view from the gorge in Buttermilk Falls State Park to the exclusion of the rest of other aspects on people who use the park. People go to Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 7 Buttermilk Falls State Park for other purposes as indicated above and people hiking the gorge trail are only a small percentage of 'park users. According to data provided by the park manager, a total of roughly 185,500 visitors came to the park in 1994. In general, attendance is seasonally skewed, with more than half of the visits occurring during the three months of summer. This attendance data incorporates almost all visitors to the park, including campers and lower and upper Buttermilk Falls visitors. The data does not count every visitor,as walk-ins (estimated to be two percent or less of the total) and bus visitors are not generally counted. In addition, it is estimated that about 25 percent of the total figures were visitors to the Upper Buttermilk Falls area,which for some impacts,is out of the area influenced by the proposed development in terms of such things as traffic. But many of these people also hike on the gorge trail. The park manager's best informal estimate was that as many as 10 percent of the total visitation numbers,which would be 18,500 in 1994,would be associated with people hiking the main trail,although in public testimony other park employees have informally estimated higher trail usage than this. That leaves 90 percent,or about 167,000 visitors to the park who are there to swim, hike in other areas than the south rim trail, to picnic, and to camp. Even if we double that and use a more generous 20 percent as an estimate of people who hike the trail, that would still leave 148,000 people unaffected. Since the other activities I mentioned are not affected by the Wal-Mart viewshed issue, I think it is fair to conclude that the vast majority of park users will not be impacted one way or the other by views from the trail. Conversely,one could draw from this data the conclusion that the impact of changes to the viewshed will impact only a small percentage of park users. But let's take a closer look at that 10 or 20 percent. I believe that the number of people actually negatively affected would be somewhat less,depending upon what proportion of the hikers even look out over the valley. My informal observations from visits to the park this spring and summer lead me to conclude that not everyone goes to the view stations, since the major focus of the hike is on the waterfall and just walking up the trail,oftentimes in casual conversation with friends or family. Furthermore, it's not even clear that all the people who do look would be negatively affected by what they see. The statements in the FEIS presume that everyone who visits the state park and who looks out from the trail will not like what they see. I think that's an over-generalization. Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 8 Lastly, some of the views are not entirely pristine,because oil storage tanks and other urban structures can be seen. I am concerned that the board has selectively focused on only one aspect of the park. The board has made a concerted effort to be as comprehensive and complete in its treatment of other subjects discussed in the environmental impact statement,and this is as it should be. As a result,the board was very careful to ensure that the discussion of impacts on traffic, noise, wetlands, water quality, community resources, social impacts, and other areas,was presented in great detail and as comprehensively as possible. But the board has omitted discussion of impacts on the broader aspects of Buttermilk Falls State Park, and I do not agree with this approach. I believe the real visual impact of this project will be the view of the front of the store and parking lot from the Elmira Road as 19,000 cars pass by daily during the year,including tourists who are headed to Buttermilk Falls State Park. Rather than focusing on the view from the trail,the planning board should be focusing on road views so that visual relief from the view from the road is emphasized and a gateway to the adjacent park be provided. Lastly, I have the impression that because of my position against the mitigation model,there is the impression out there that I am opposed to any mitigation of this project and that I am opposed to having a large number of trees on site. That is hardly the case. I have always been in support of using trees as part of the effort to work out site details for proposed projects, and I would not change my stance for this project. Thank you for listening to my remarks. Peterson had a question about the Certification of Findings to Deny. Guttman stated that the Board was still in the environmental review process and that a Certification of Findings to Deny would state that the proposal cannot be mitigated in any way and that the Board could not develop a model that would mitigate the measures. Kay stated that it was his understanding that it is the Board's responsibility to review evidence and make judgments as to numbers,etc. since there are no specific guidelines for that. Peterson stated that the beauty of nature cannot be reduced to mathematical numbers. Adams stated she wanted to make it clear that a vote for the Findings Statement with a Certification of Findings to Approve with Conditions does not approve the site plan. Minutes of October 24, 1995 Meeting 9 The vote on the motion was 4-2 in favor,with Blumenthal and Peterson opposed. The Findings Statement adopted by the Board is attached to these Minutes. B. Site Plan Review- Public Hearing Kay stated that the Board wished to hear first from city residents or property owners because the Site Development Plan Review Ordinance explicitly states that"the right to speak at a public hearing shall always be reserved for any city resident or property owner." Kay said after all city residents and property owners have had an opportunity to speak, the Board would permit others to have their turn. He stated again that this is a continuation of the public hearing on the site plan and not a new hearing. Since many of the comments the Board is likely to hear will be a reemphasis and repetition,Kay strongly urged that comments include the new,the substantive and the brief. He stated the Board would allow three minutes for each individual to speak, but for anyone who has already spoken they will be prompted to draw their remarks to a close after one minute. After many citizens spoke in favor of and against the project,the public hearing was closed. • FINDINGS STATEMENT WAL-MART DEPARTMENT STORE 398-400 ELMIRA ROAD,ITHACA,NEW YORK LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF ITHACA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA,NY 14850 DAVID KAY,CHAIR 607-274-6550 FINDINGS STATEMENT WAL-MART DEPARTMENT STORE 398-400 ELMIRA ROAD, ITHACA,NY INTRODUCTION East Coast Development Company(ECDC)submitted an application for Site Development Plan Review to the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board on May 28, 1993. ECDC has obtained options on a 24.5 acre site located at 398-400 Elmira Road,Ithaca,New York where it initially proposed to construct a 129,768 sf Wal-Mart store with expansion potential for an additional 30,000 sf. Known as Alternative SE-1,this proposal also includes a total of 890 parking spaces and covers approximately 15 acres of the site. Pursuant to the terms of the City's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance,the Planning and Development Board declared itself the lead agency for purposes of conducting an environmental review of this application on June 23, 1993. The Board then determined that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment and filed a Positive Declaration and Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on July 27, 1993. Following a scoping session conducted in August, 1993, ECDC submitted the first of three Draft Environmental Impact Statements in February, 1994. The Board determined the DEIS submitted in November, 1994 to be adequate for public comment in December, 1994. Written comments on the DEIS from involved and interested agencies and the general public were received during a thirty period that ended on March 13, 1995. Verbal comments were received by the Board during three scheduled public comment periods on February 27 and 28, 1995. In response to Planning Board and public comments on the impact of this proposal on the project site and surrounding area,particularly on the views from Buttermilk Falls State Park and on the adjacent,proposed substitute parkland,the applicant tentatively proposed a revised plan in March, 1995. Referred to as Alternative 5,this plan includes a 123,350 sf Wal-Mart store with expansion potential of 30,000 sf,and a first phase parking area containing 681 spaces. The building has been resited in this plan so that it is closer to Elmira Road,does not intrude into the substitute parkland, but still remains within the viewshed of an important local visual resource. In addition,nearly the entire parking lot intrudes into the viewshed and a significant portion of the parking lot,loading dock and service functions of the facility intrude into the substitute parkland Other features of this plan do not significantly differ from Alternative SE-1. However,the applicant has not formally submitted Alternative 5 or yet submitted a set of plans for this proposal that conform to the submission requirements outlined in the City's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance. Nevertheless,both plans are addressed in this findings statement. The Planning and Development Board filed a Final Environmental Impact Statement which responds to all substantive comments with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation on October 2, 1995. The FEIS is primarily based on the two alternatives discussed above and a Sample Mitigation Model developed by the Planning Board. The Sample Mitigation Model is based on four site development guidelines developed by the Board in response to several key potential impacts the development of the proposed project would generate. These guidelines are proposed as measures that would minimize, to the maximum extent 1 practicable,the adverse environmental impacts created by the proposed development on the adjacent substitute parkland by a) eliminating actual physical incursions of the building and parking lot into the substitute parkland,'and b)reducing the likely visual, noise,odor,lighting and litter impacts of a large development immediately adjacent to the substitute parkland The guidelines are also intended to minimize to the maximum extent practicable the adverse visual impacts of the unavoidably large expanses of pavement and roof on the only stations on the Buttermilk Falls State Park's main hiking trail from which a largely unobstructed view over the Inlet Valley is available. PHYSICAL,ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as lead agency for the environmental review, having considered the Final EIS, makes the following findings pursuant to Article 8" of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617: 1. Traffic 1.1 The applicant's proposal to simply use the existing northbound left lane of Elmira Road as the turn lane into the project site will lead to a failure of this lane and cause traffic to back up as far as Buttermilk Falls Road as vehicles try to avoid this lane and maneuver into the right lane. Without a separate left turn lane the safety of the intersection will be compromised since stacked cars in a through lane cause rear end collisions and sideswipe accidents. The applicant's proposal will, furthermore, reduce the anticipated positive traffic impact of NYSDOT's $14 million Bridge Replacement and Improvement Project currently underway near the proposed project site. 1.2 The traffic analyses conducted indicate a reduction in the Level of Service, from B to C at one intersection in 1995 during the weekday peak (Meadow Street/Old Elmira Road), and two intersections in 2005 during the weekday peak (Meadow Street/Old Elmira Road and Site Driveway/Elmira Road). 1.3 During the Saturday peak hour these same two intersections also experience a reduction in the Level of Service from B to C. The reduction of the Level of Service at Meadow and Elmira Road is significant enough to cause many vehicles to stop, substantially increasing delay time per vehicle passing through the intersection. This reduction in the level of service will most likely be exacerbated by the seasonal fluctuation in traffic. Based on the analysis of the seasonal impact on traffic, there will be a significant increase in traffic between the weekday pm peak generally and the Saturday pm peak during the Christmas season. 1.4 The impact of the increase in traffic and the reduction in service levels caused by a store of 123,350 sf includes an increase of intersection delay of 3.3 seconds over current levels, an increase in overall system delay by 37 vehicle hours for an approximately 78% increase, an increase in total system stops by 4,561 for an increase of approximately 61% and an increase in total fuel consumption of 51.9 gallons for an increase of approximately 33%. When the store is expanded to the 2 proposed approximately 155,000 sf there is a projected increase in intersection delay of 3.5 seconds over current levels, an increase in overall system delay of approximately 100% or 47 vehicle hours, an increase in total system stops of 7,506 for an approximately 101% increase and an increase in total fuel consumed of 75.5 gallons for an approximately 48% increase. The impact on the environment includes an increase in emissions which contribute to a deterioration of air quality in the area. 1.5 The overall Level of Service for the site intersection will not change except with a 155,000 sf store and then it is from Level of Service B to Level of Service C, an acceptable Level of Service by traffic engineers. All other Levels of Service remain at B with the other size stores. 1.6 In order to minimize to the extent practicable these anticipated traffic impacts, the applicant will,at its expense,be required to: a.) Provide a northbound dedicated left turn lane at the entrance/exit drive to the project site as called for by both NYSDOT and the City Traffic Systems Manager. The stacking mom in this turn lane will be sufficiently long to accommodate peak season traffic volumes. The applicant will also coordinate its proposed development with NYSDOT's contract for Route 13 Bridge Replacement and Improvement program which will overlap with the applicant's proposal; b.) Restripe the existing pavement on Old Elmira Road at the intersection with Meadow Street to create a left turn lane and a shared right-left turn lane; c.) Adjust the signal timing at the intersection of Old Elmira Road and Meadow Street to reduce delay time; d.) Install a two way signal at the intersection of the site driveway and Elmira Road. Seasonal adjustment of this traffic signal may be necessary to accommodate increased traffic, especially during the Christmas shopping season. Applicant will consult with the City Traffic System Engineer to develop a methodology for assessing the need for this adjustment and if necessary make such adjustment; e.) Coordinate traffic signals with NYSDOT and City Traffic Signal upgrade project. f.) Design the site driveway to create two exit lanes and one entrance lane. 3 2. Parking 2.1 The applicant has proposed a parking ratio of approximately 6.5 spaces per 1,000 sf of building for Alternative SE-1. This will result in a paved area of more than 6 acres. The applicant has also proposed a parking ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sf of building for Alternative 5. This will result in a paved area of nearly 5 acres, before Alternative 5's proposed 30,000 sf expansion. The size and scale of either of these parking areas will have significant adverse visual and physical environmental impacts on the adjacent proposed substitute parkland and bicycle and hiking trails. 2.2 The variety of negative impacts on neighboring land uses caused by the size and scale of the proposed parking lot can be minimized by reducing the number of parking spaces to at least the Urban Land Institute standard of 4 parking spaces for every 1,000 sf of building area (as recommended by the ULI for neighborhood or community shopping centers). 2.3 The lack of any substantial amount of landscaping within and around the parking lot as proposed in either of the applicant's plans exacerbates the negative impact of the size of the lot. These impacts include the visual impact of several acres of asphalt as viewed from the main hiking trail at Buttermilk Falls State Park, as viewed from the proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails that surround the project site,as viewed from the Negundo Woods critical environmental area, and as viewed from Elmira Road/Route 13,one of the principal gateways into the City. 2.4 The size and southern orientation of the proposed parking lot will also tend to increase the temperature of storm water runoff. The temperature of storm water runoff will impact the quality of the remaining wetlands and other sensitive ecological areas, such as Negundo Woods and the fishery maintained by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, immediately adjacent to the project site. 2.5 In order to minimize to the maximum extent practicable these adverse environmental impacts,the applicant will be required to utilize a parking lot design that incorporates landscaped islands that are at least between ten to twelve feet wide. The planting islands will be parallel to Elmira Road and run the full length of the parking bay. There should be one planting island per parking bay. The planting islands will be planted with trees that at maturity will provide a tall, full canopy that will screen the parking lot from the view stations along the hiking trail on the south rim of the gorge in Buttermilk Falls State Park and provide adequate shade in the parking lot. When first planted these trees will have a minimum caliper of 3 inches at the base. The landscaped islands will improve both driver and pedestrian safety by better delineating the driving aisles and by slowing the overall rate of speed within the parking lot through the perceived shrinking of the lot and by preventing drivers from cross-cutting through the lot at increased rates of speed. 2.6 Additional mitigation required to minimize to the maximum extent practicable these adverse environmental impacts will include a site plan prepared by the applicant 4 which incorporates a retention basin or basins that will improve the quality of the surface water flowing from the proposed parking areas and into these environmentally sensitive areas by trapping sediments and removing pollutants. 3. Noise 3.1. Noise generated by either of the applicant's proposals will have a significant negative impact on substitute parkland to the north of the project site and on the proposed bicycle and hiking trails that surround the proposed site. Locating the store within the substitute parklands without an effective noise buffer will result in significantly increased noise levels in this green corridor and future parkland as a direct result of the development.These increased noise levels, produced by delivery trucks and other service vehicles maneuvering in the loading dock area that abuts the substitute parkland and noise produced by other functions related to a large store and its related parking lot, will negatively impact the suitability of the proposed substitute parkland and negatively impact the Negundo Woods critical environmental area. 3.2 In order to minimize to the maximum extent practicable these adverse impacts the applicant will be required to include sufficient areas around the periphery of the developed portion of the site that will function as a noise buffer. These areas will be improved with a fence and/or berm combined with dense landscaping with appropriate materials that will create a buffer between the proposed store, the parking lot and service area and the adjoining substitute parkland and proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails along the top of the Levee, along the Cayuga Inlet through Negundo Woods and along the top of the nearby abandoned railroad embankment. 3.3 A substantial amount of noise will be generated during the construction of the project. The operation of heavy equipment and construction vehicles may generate noise that will impact the residential area to the south of the project site. All construction activity will take place during normal business hours (specific schedule to be developed as part of the site plan review process) to adequately minimize these short term noise impacts. • 4. Pedestrian/Bicycle Access/Circulation 4.1 The applicant's two site plans for the proposed project include an entrance drive and circulation road around the site that is sized only for vehicular access. No provision is made to accommodate bicycles. 4.2 To correct this deficiency the applicant will be required to provide an entrance drive and circulation road which includes shoulders of at least four feet on each side for bicycle access. This bicycle lane must be separated from the rest of the roadway by a continuous yellow line and be periodically marked indicating it is a bike lane. In addition,bicycle racks must be provided near the store entrance. 4.3 To insure adequate and safe public transportation and pedestrian circulation, the applicant will be required to construct a bus shelter in front of the project site on Elmira Road in such a manner that the bus can stop outside of the travel lane. Pedestrian access from the bus shelter must be provided with a sidewalk leading, in as direct a route as possible, from the bus shelter to the front of the proposed store. 4.4 Sidewalks along the frontage of the project site are not proposed although they are included in the State's Bridge Replacement and Improvement project which is currently under construction near the project site. It is the Planning Board's policy, for all projects located along Elmira Road, to require the installation of sidewalks as part of the Site Plan Review process in order to facilitate pedestrian access. 4.5 The applicant will be required to provide sidewalks along the Elmira Road frontage of the project site that are at least ten feet back from the edge of the road and extend sufficiently far south to connect with the sidewalk that will be constructed by NYSDOT as part of the Route 13 Improvement project (approximately by Tropical Pets). The ten foot setback from Elmira Road is required to provide for a tree lawn, snow storage area and to protect pedestrians from passing vehicles. 4.6 The applicant will also be required to include a pedestrian phase cycle for the traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of the site driveway and Elmira Road (subject to approval by the City Traffic Systems Manager). 4.7 Neither of the applicant's site plans adequately provides for the safety and convenience of pedestrians on site. The parking lot design is such that shoppers, having parked their cars, must walk in the drive lanes of the parking lot in order to reach the store. 4.8 To insure adequate and safe pedestrian access and circulation,the applicant will be required to provide a pedestrian circulation system within the site in a manner that incorporates the landscaped islands called for in Section 2.5 above. Sidewalks connecting the parking lot to the front of the store will be sited so they take advantage of the shade and more pleasing environment and human scale provided by these landscaped islands. This approach will also enhance pedestrian safety by creating designated pedestrian routes rather than having pedestrians randomly walk through the parking lot to the store as is proposed in the applicant's site plans. 4.9 The applicant's proposal will create serious negative impacts on the proposed bicycle trail known as the Black Diamond Trail. This trail will be constructed by Finger Lakes State Parks with funds already committed through the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. The trail is proposed to pass by the project site alongside the Cayuga Inlet through Negundo Woods, with important linkages on the other two sides of the project site including the top of the levee, and along the top of the old railroad embankment. 4.10 In order to minimize these adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable, the final site plan must include sufficient areas around the periphery of the site that will be heavily landscaped with appropriate materials to provide a buffer between 6 the proposed store, the parking lot and service area and the adjoining substitute parkland and proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails along the top of the Levee, along the Cayuga Inlet through Negundo Woods and along the top of the abandoned railroad embankment. 4.11 The NYSDOT Improvement Project for Route 13 includes removing the old railroad abutments and building new abutments further back from Route 13. The new abutments are designed to support a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that will continue the proposed bike and hiking trail that will run along the top of the former railroad embankment that curves to the southwest of the project site. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the site would be enhanced by the installation of this bridge. 4.12 The applicant has previously suggested constructing this bridge. A formal agreement by the applicant to do this would improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the area and further enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety around and to the proposed site. 5. Visual 5.1 Buttermilk Falls State Park is a significant social,cultural and economic resource in the community. 5.2 The applicant's site plan will cover approximately 14.8 acres (SE-1) or 11.5 acres (Alternative 5, before its proposed expansion of 30,000 sf)of the project site. The proposed total development of an approximately 155,000 sf building and associated parking lot for between 890 (SE-1) and 681 (Alternative 5, before its proposed expansion of 30,000 sf) cars will create a substantial visual impact on the only view stations on the main hiking trail in the Park from which a largely unobstructed view over the Cayuga Inlet Valley is available. Alternative SE-1 locates nearly the entire development, including nearly all parking and circulation areas, within the viewshed. Alternative 5 locates a section of the building, and nearly the entire parking lot and the entrance drive from Elmira Road fully within view of the main trail in the park. This impact will likely increase after its proposed expansion. For both alternatives, the visual impact of this parking lot is not reduced by any significant provision of internal planting areas. Both of these proposals create substantial, negative visual impacts that will compromise the overall experience of visiting the park for numerous visitors and will lead to a reduction of enjoyment of the park for others. Both also possibly creates related impacts on tourism in Tompkins County. 5.3 The City of Ithaca Fire Chief has stated that the building in Alternative 5 must be located at least fifty feet away from the Levee. This required relocation will increase the incursion of the building and parking areas into the Park viewshed. 5.4 The visual impact on this aesthetic and economic resource will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable by locating the entire building completely outside of 7 the Buttermilk Falls State Park viewshed as seen from the primary observation points,on the Park's main hiking trail. 5.5 Additionally, the applicant will be required to design the parking lot for the proposed development to include ten to twelve foot wide continuous planting islands in every bay. Continuous planting islands this wide are necessary for large canopy trees to successfully survive the unusually harsh microclimate created by the large expanse of asphalt associated with parking lots of this magnitude. The tall trees proposed for these islands require the soil and water volume only planting islands of this size can provide. These islands should run parallel to Elmira Road so that they provide a substantial visual buffer shielding the parking lot from the view from the main trail in the Park. The islands shall be planted with trees that have a minimum 3 inch caliper and are located such that they effectively screen the parking lot from view. 5.6 As proposed, both of the applicant's site plans will negatively impact views from the Levee and the railroad embankment. Planned as spurs of a recreationway that will provide pedestrian and bicycling opportunities, the proposed development will seriously impact the quality of the view from the Levee and embankment to the project site. 5.7 In order to minimize this adverse impact to the maximum extent practicable, the applicant will be required to provide a site plan which includes sufficient areas around the periphery of the site that will be heavily landscaped with appropriate materials to provide a buffer between the proposed store, the parking lot and service area and the proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails along the top of the Levee, along the Cayuga Inlet through Negundo Woods and along the top of the abandoned railroad embankment 5.8 Both of the applicant's plans incorporate light fixtures that are 42 feet high. Light poles this high will have a negative effect on surrounding land uses, especially the residential neighborhood to the south, drivers on Elmira Road/Route 13 and on evening users of Buttermilk Falls State Park. 5.9 To adequately address this problem the applicant will be required to provide light fixtures that are no higher than 30 feet and which must utilize a cut off fixture design to minimize light spillage to surrounding properties, including Negundo Woods and Buttermilk Falls State Park. In addition, a program of timed, reduced light levels during night hours when the store is closed will be required in order to minimize the off site impacts of night lighting and to reduce energy consumption. 5.10 The applicant has proposed two, standard alternative facade designs for the building that only deal with the front elevation of the building when, in fact, all of the building's elevations are in view from either Elmira Road or from one of the proposed bicycle and hiking trails around the site. Furthermore, the use of the applicant's generic design is not compatible with a site as unique and visible as this one is. 8 5.11 To adequately satisfy these concerns, the applicant will be required to thoughtfully design the elevations of all four sides of the building in a manner sensitive to the unique'nature of this site and location. The applicant will also be required to engage an architect to work with the Planning Board in developing appropriate elevations during the site plan review process. 6. Wetlands and Water Quality 6.1 The development of this project will, inevitably, result in the loss of wetland areas. There are according to the DEIS a total of 2.3 acres of wetlands on the site. While either of the applicant's proposals will eliminate less than one acre of this wetland area, the nearly 12 to 15 acres of proposed development will create significant quantities of storm water runoff. Road salt, grease and oil, and other potentially toxic chemicals in the storm water runoff as it leaves the developed portions of the site represent a potential impact on the remaining wetland areas not directly impacted by the development, as well as on the Cayuga Inlet and the Negundo Woods critical environmental area. 6.2 A reduction in project size will reduce the wetland area to be filled and the negative impacts created by the quantity and quality of surface water runoff on the remaining wetland areas and on the nearby stream and woods 6.3 The applicant will be required to utilize a site plan which incorporates appropriate systems to minimize the adverse impacts of storm water runoff, to the maximum extent practicable, on the surrounding natural area, including the remaining wetlands. This site plan must include at least the following mitigation measures: a.) a scheduled vacuum sweeping program for the parking lots; b.) development of a plan to,as much as possible,use cinders,sand or other materials in lieu of salt; c.) utilization of sumps in all storm drains to trap sediments; d.) incorporation of a detention basin with appropriate filters and devices to ensure the discharged water is of the highest quality practical; e.) measures to insure storm water is directed to the remaining wetlands at a rate to maintain current wetland function; f.) arrangement of the site plan so the development minimizes incursions into wetland areas. 6.4 In order to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the negative environmental effects of increased groundwater temperature caused by the extent of paved area in either of the applicant's plans, the applicant will be required to incorporate into the design of the parking lot sufficient trees to shade the lot and decrease surface temperatures. 6.5 Flooding is not a problem with any of the alternatives considered. 9 7. Ecological Resources 7.1 Negundo Woods possesses three special characteristics that have led Tompkins County to list it as a Unique Natural Area. These include the presence of rare or scarce plant species, an ecosystem that is one of the best of its kind in the County and an area of outstanding natural scenic beauty as viewed within or from a distance.. It is one of the largest and best example of a climax floodplain forest within Tompkins County. Either of the applicant's proposals, because of its size and proximity to this unique natural resource, will generate a number of impacts which threaten the environmental quality of this area including: lighting, litter, visual, noise and surface water quality impacts. The adverse impact of the proposed development on Negundo Woods can be mitigated, to the maximum extent practicable,by the following: a.) The applicant will be required to modify the proposed development in order to increase the distance between the development and Negundo Woods. b.) The applicant has proposed 42 foot high light fixtures. These lights will illuminate more than just the project site. These fixtures must be lowered to at least 30 feet and must utilize a cut off fixture design as a standard practice to minimize light spillage to surrounding properties, including Negundo Woods and Buttermilk Falls State Park. c.) The rear portion of the proposed development, which includes service and delivery areas, must be appropriately landscaped to create an adequate buffer zone. The buffer areas immediately adjacent to the developed portions of the site must be landscaped with a substantial quantity of deciduous and evergreen tree species at close spacing to soften the views from this sensitive ecological resource. Earthen berms may also be used to raise the base elevation of vegetative screening. d.) The site design for the area beyond the developed portions of the site must include the planting of native floodplain tree species to extend Negundo Woods southward. 7.2 The records of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NYS Heritage Program have been consulted for evidence of threatened or endangered species on the site. No evidence exists. However, modifying the project will reduce the impact on existing flora and fauna on or near the site. 7.3 The 2.3 acres of wetlands present on the site and the fishery maintained by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation located in proximity to the project site are potentially threatened by the effects of surface water runoff. This runoff will contain road salt, grease and oil and other potentially toxic chemicals, as well as have a higher temperature that will threaten these natural resources. 7.4 Locating the development as far away as possible from these resources will minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, this adverse impact. Additional 10 mitigation measures must include a storm water management system that incorporates sump and/or grease traps and the other techniques identified in 6.3 above, to remove as much pollutant material as possible. 7.5 In addition, the site design must incorporate a retention pond or ponds that will improve the quality of storm water runoff that eventually will reach these areas by trapping sediments,reducing the incoming runoff velocity and removing pollutants. 7.6 The applicant's proposed site plan for SE-1 will raise the existing grade by as much as approximately 8.5 feet. Alternative 5 will raise existing grade by as much as approximately 6.5 feet. This amount of fill, required to achieve a finished floor elevation that is above the 100 year flood elevation, will create an extreme differential between existing grade and finished grade that will create a visual impact that will be difficult to mitigate. 7.7 In order to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable this adverse impact the applicant will be required to modify the proposed development so that it minimizes the amount of fill required to achieve the necessary finished floor elevation and result in less site disturbance. 8. Socio-Economic 8.1 The applicant's proposal will create either a 129,768 sf or 123,350 sf store with expansion potential of 30,000 sf. This will be the largest, single unit,retail store in Tompkins County. 8.2 Given the size of the market available to support the applicant's proposal, an estimated 72%or more of the forecasted sales a Wal-Mart is likely to generate will come from existing retailers in the Primary Trade Area (roughly all of Tompkins County). 8.3 According to the applicant's DEIS, the proposed store is projected to create 140 jobs based on$17.4 million in sales in its first year of operation. However, the net employment impact, after accounting for potential employment losses from transferred sales is expected to be approximately 40 jobs. 8.4 The proposed store, according to the DEIS, is projected to generate approximately $50,000 in property taxes. However, the net property tax increase after accounting for changes in assessed valuations that may result from transferred sales and taxes currently collected is projected to be less than$17,000. 8.5 Based on the low sales forecast included in the applicant's DEIS, the proposed store is expected to generate approximately $385,000 in sales tax revenue for the City of Ithaca. Transferred sales, however, may result in the loss of nearly $125,000 in sales tax revenue from other retail districts in the City. The net sales tax impact is more likely to be approximately$260,000. 11 8.6 Of the total transferred sales, approximately 44% are estimated to be transferred from existing retailers in the City of Ithaca to Wal-Mart. 8.7 An estimated 15% of the transferred sales will be captured from retail stores within the City of Ithaca's Central Business District(CBD). 8.8 An estimated 15% loss of sales within the City's CBD may result in the loss of small, locally owned or regionally based retail businesses, a group that represents nearly all of the CBDs retail businesses. 8.9 While there may be a small net gain in employment in the Primary Trade Area, transferred sales may mean the displacement of 22 jobs within the City's CBD alone. 8.10 The retail dislocations that could occur as a result of this development would place at risk the viability of nearly twenty five years of continuous effort to support and revitalize the City's CBD. 9. Land Use,Comprehensive Plans,and Zoning 9.1 The southern portion of the site has a B-5 commercial zoning classification and fronts on Elmira Road a commercial strip running north - south through the City. This area is characterized by large and small auto oriented retail activity. The entire northern portion of the property is zoned FW-1 (a zone which prohibits buildings) and is part of a green space corridor that stretches from Buttermilk Falls State Park,over the abandoned railroad embankment,through three parcels already purchased by the City as substitute parkland, through the northern portion of the project site and Negundo Woods to the Levee and along the Levee to the Flood Control Channel. This corridor then follows the Flood Control Channel to Cass Park and Allan H. Treman State Marine Park. The Black Diamond Trail and its spur trails, a major biking and hiking trail being built by Finger lakes State Parks, will thread through this entire green corridor. 9.2 The back(north) of the development proposed in Alternative SE-1 with its loading dock, access road and other service functions will be the exception to, and clash with, the general character of the open space system that abuts the store. Development in the FW-1 zone will have a significant negative impact on the Black Diamond Trail and the green space corridor it traverses. That portion of Alternative 5 (i.e., the parking lot and access/circulation road) which extends into this open space system will also compromise the recreational quality of that land. 9.3 The applicant's proposed Alternative SE-1 extends into that portion of the project site that is zoned FW-1. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals granted a conditional use variance to the building areas labeled"Proposed Discount Store" and"Future Expansion"contained in the area labeled FW-1 on the preliminary site plan prepared by T. G.Miller and dated October 1, 1992(see BZA Minutes, November 9, 1992, Appeal No. 2153,Pages 34 and 35). The specific area granted the conditional use variance as shown on the referenced map and reflected 12 in the minutes of the BZA meeting occupies about one acre,or perhaps a little less than one acre, rather than the 3.6 acres erroneously stated by the applicant in the DEIS. 9.4 The BZA variance was not based on the existing southern FW-I boundary line but on that boundary line as shown on the applicant's site plans which located the line approximately 170 feet north of where it is currently shown on City zoning maps. However, as documented on pages 2-8 in the `Planning and Development Board (Lead Agency) Comments On the DEIS Dated Nov. 22, 1994 Submitted by East Coast Development Company on Behalf of a Proposed Wal-Mart Department Store on Elmira Rd. in the City of Ithaca" the BZA did not rely on all, or even the correct, maps in agreeing to base its decision on a line 170 feet further north from where is presently exists. 9.5 Alternative SE-1 extends building and fill substantially into FW-1 land outside the area for which the conditional variance was given. Further review by the BZA would be required before building construction could be permitted on land outside the specific area identified in the BZA decision. 9.6 Alternative 5, by relocating the building to the southeast corner of the site, reduces the amount of building that encroaches into the FW-1 zone. However, a portion of the building and a substantial portion of the parking and circulation area still extends into the FW-1 zone. 9.7 Numerous planning documents prepared by the City and Town of Ithaca provide a long history of documented intent in regard to the land zoned FW-1. These documents have repeatedly recommended that Negundo Woods and all City lands zoned FW-1 be used for parkland or be protected open green space. Any other use must be considered to have a negative impact on the substitute parkland, the green corridor and years of coordinated City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca land use planning. 9.8 Numerous planning documents also evidence the City's long-standing commitment to preserving and enhancing its central business district. The size of the proposed development, the size of the market able to support it and the potential retail dislocations it is likely to produce threaten over twenty years of effort the community has invested in maintaining a viable central business district. 10. Proposed Substitute Parkland 10.1 A significant portion of either of the applicant's proposals will occur in the substitute parkland identified in legislation passed by the Ithaca Common Council and the NYS Legislature in 1985. The most immediate impact of this development is the permanent, irretrievable loss of this substitute parkland area. 10.2 The back (north) of the Wal-Mart development with its loading dock and access road will be the exception to, and conflict with, the general character of the open space system on this side of the store. 13 10.3 Development in this area of the site will have a negative impact on the Black Diamond Trail and the green space corridor (i.e., substitute parklands and adjacent natural areas) it traverses. 10.4 Secondary impacts of this development on the substitute parkland include the intrusive effects of a development of this type(such as noise/air pollution and litter and visual impact) on the remaining substitute parkland, which includes three parcels the City has already purchased for recreational purposes. 10.5 These adverse impacts can be minimized to the maximum extent practicable by limiting all development, the building, parking lot and circulation roads, to the Elmira Road side of the southern boundary of substitute parkland defined in Chapter 757 of New York State laws of 1985 ( and as shown on Site Plan 1 and 6 in the FEIS). 10.6 These adverse impacts can be further minimized to the maximum extent practicable by requiring the applicant to include in the site plan a planted buffer area shielding the substitute park land from the building and paved area. This planted buffer area shall exist south of the Chapter 757 line described above or be otherwise located to buffer, shield and screen from view the rear of the proposed development from the proposed substitute parkland without jeopardizing recreational and visual quality of that parkland. 10.7 If the applicant wishes to dedicate the undeveloped portion of the project site, that is the area beyond the substitute parkland line, as open space for use by the City as substitute parkland,the Planning Board will recommend acceptance of this area by the Common Council. 10.8 Access to the substitute parkland from Elmira Road may be provided by the applicant through the granting of an easement over part of the access and circulation road around the proposed project site. 11. Community Resources 11.1 The applicant's proposals cover approximately 12 to 15 acres of vacant land and eliminate a significant area of the land identified by the City and the State of New York as substitute parkland. The proposed 30,000 sf expansion will exacerbate this impact not only for the footprint of the expansion, but also through the additional parking required to support it. 11.2 Both of the applicant's proposals introduce an incompatible land use into the identified substitute parkland area. Secondary impacts of such development include the visual effect of a structure of this size and its loading dock and service function areas, the effect of the noise generated by trucks, garbage compactors and HVAC units, the effect of the smell of exhaust fumes and the effect of litter and other debris from the service areas of the building. These secondary impacts will result 14 in a reduction in the recreational quality of the parklands not directly eliminated by the proposed development but adjacent to it. 11.3 Upwards of 185,000 persons visit Buttermilk Falls State Park annually. The hiking trails in the park are a significant attraction that contributes to the local tourism industry. Alternative SE-1 locates nearly the entire proposed 159,768 sf development, including nearly all parking and circulation areas within the viewshed area visible from the main hiking trail in the park. Alternative 5 will place a portion of the 123,350 sf building and nearly all of the 680 space parking lot in this viewshed area. Alternative 5's proposed 30,000 sf expansion would likely increase its impact on the viewshed. The development, as proposed, will create a negative visual impact that will harm a local visual resource and may harm the local tourism industry. 11.4 The visual impact created by the scale and design of the proposed project on the pedestrian and bicycle trails that are proposed to run adjacent to the proposed development site will compromise the quality of these recreational assets. 11.5 In order to minimize to the maximum extent practicable these adverse impacts the applicant will be required to submit a site plan for the proposed project that is substantially consistent with the site development guidelines agreed upon by the Planning and Development Board. These guidelines were developed by the Board in response to the impacts the proposed development of this site would have on the land and visual resources identified above. These site development guidelines are as follows: a) All building and pavement (including parking areas, access lanes and loading docks and maneuvering areas) shall occur entirely on the Elmira Road side of the southern boundary of substitute parkland defined in Chapter 757 of New York State laws of 1985 ( and as shown on Site Plans 1 and 6 in the FEIS). b.) The entire building shall be located completely outside of the Buttermilk Falls State Park viewshed as viewed from primary observation points on the main trail; c.) Double loaded parking bays shall be separated by continuous ten to twelve foot wide planting strips parallel to Elmira Road or be of such other width sufficient to support trees with large enough canopies to screen the parking area from the view from the trails in Buttermilk Falls State Park; d.) A planted buffer area shielding the substitute park land from the building and paved area shall exist south of the Chapter 757 line described above or be otherwise located to buffer,shield and screen from view the rear of the proposed development from the proposed substitute parkland without jeopardizing the recreational and visual quality of that parkland. 15 12. Community Services 12.1 The proposed project will utilize 6,000 gallons of water per day. There exists sufficient capacity to service this project 12.2 The proposed project will generate 5,000 to 6,000 gallons of effluent per day. The sewage treatment plant has a 2.5 million gallon reserve. 12.3 The proposed project will generate approximately 8 to 10 tons of solid waste per month. Wal-Mart will contract with a private vendor to haul its solid waste. In addition, 16 to 18 tons of cardboard will be generated monthly. The facility will be equipped with a cardboard baler. 100% of the cardboard will be recycled. No impact on public service or facilities is projected. 12.4 According to both the City of Ithaca Police Chief and Fire Chief, the construction of the proposed project will not result in an increase for service that will generate a need to increase current staffing levels. 13. Alternatives 13.1 The applicant considered seven alternative locations within Tompkins County which were all rejected either because the location was not considered adequate, current zoning did not allow the proposed use or expansion of an existing facility was not possible. 13.2 The applicant also evaluated four alternative site plans in the DEIS, each based on facilities of approximately 125,000 sf. The parking ratios for each plan ranged between 6 to 6.5 spaces per 1,000 sf. All of these plans locate the building and/or parking lot in the viewshed from Buttermilk Falls State Park and in the proposed substitute parkland. 13.3 The no action alternative was considered. 13.4 Although Alternative 5 begins to address some, though not all, of the mitigation measures expressed in the site development guidelines, a complete set of plans that conforms to the City's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance has never been submitted. 14. Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitment Of Resources 14.1 The proposed approximately 130,000 125,000 sf store with expansion potential to approximately 160,000 sf will result in the conversion of approximately 12 to 15 acres of open space and agricultural land. The impact of this development is not limited to the just the conversion from these existing uses to a commercial use. The scale and scope of the proposed development also involves the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of land from a proposed recreational and park use to 16 commercial development. Significant areas of potential substitute parkland will be lost as a result of this proposal. 14.2 Without adequate measures for mitigating the impact of the proposed development on the site, such as development limited to the commercially zoned portions of the site, the quality of the remaining lands that may be available for park use - including parcels the City already owns - will be seriously and irreparably damaged. 14.3 Development on this site will irreversibly and irretrievably impact a very important regional visual resource: views from the main hiking trail at Buttermilk Falls State Park. The proposed development will dramatically alter the existing view of the site which consists of green open space, a magnificent hedge row of mature trees and Negundo Woods in the immediate background. 14.4 This impact is only partially mitigated by the relocation of the building to the front of the site and adjacent to the levee as proposed in Alternative 5. A part of the building will still be seen from the trail. The parking associated with this alternative will eliminate the hedge row of mature trees and still be wholly in view from the trail as well. This plan will inevitably and significantly damage the quality of views from the Park, and, will, therefore, harm an important regional resource,unless adequately mitigated. 14.5 In order to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, these adverse environmental effects the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a site plan for the proposed development which is substantially consistent with the site development guidelines identified in section 11.5 above. 15.0 Energy Use And Conservation 15.1 The applicant has proposed various energy conservation measures including: a.) mechanical systems equipped with automatic economizers on air conditioning systems, b.) high efficiency air conditioning compressors, c.) automatic time controlled shut down system with automatic night set back override for heating,air conditioning and ventilation equipment, d.) air to air energy reclaim devices on exhaust systems and high efficiency water heating equipment. 15.2 To maximize the energy efficiency of the proposed building, the applicant will incorporate these elements into the design of the building. 15.3 The applicant has suggested other measures which may be used to reduce electric power consumption and construction techniques that will reduce energy consumption. These will be explored during the site plan review process. 17 15.4 The inclusion of the energy saving techniques developed by Wal-Mart at its Environmental Demonstration Store in Lawrence, Kansas will be explored during the site plan review process. These include: a.) Wood structure because wood is a renewable resource and uses much less energy to manufacture into a building product that many other materials; b.) Skylights operating in tandem with the lighting system in the building to reduce energy consumption; c.) Energy efficient heating and cooling systems,including non ozone depleting refrigerants and the use of ice making equipment to cool the building during summer months; d.) Recycling of storm water and gray water,particularly for the watering needs of site landscaping and the nursery component of the store. e.) Wal-Mart pylon sign that uses solar energy; f.) Recycled asphalt for the parking lot and the use of recycled plastic for bumper blocks; g.) Landscaping incorporating transplanted trees; h.) Store light fixtures that utilize energy efficient fluorescent lamps that are 25%-30%more efficient than the standard light fixtures used in other Wal-Mart stores. Inclusion of as many of these items as feasible in the final design of the facility will be an integral part of the Board's review of the final site plan for the project. • 18 CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS Name of Action: Application for Site Plan Development Plan Review-Wal-Mart Department Store Identification Number: P7-500700-00023 The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board having considered the Draft and Final EIS,and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9,this Statement of Finrlin Is certifies that: . 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 and the City's Environmental Quality Review Ordinance have been met; 2. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the applicant's proposed plan, Alternative SE-1, is one which, if all the stipulated mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIS and Findings Statement were incorporated,would minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement; 3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable; City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Name of Agency 1 L.' it .... David Kay Signature of•- •• •e Official Name of Responsible Official Chair,Planning and Development Board October 24, 1995 Title of Responsible Official Date 108 East Green Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 Address of Agency 19