Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-10-26 Approved 12/19/95 Planning and Development Board MINUTES Special Meeting October 26, 1995 Present:David Kay, Chair;Sarah Adams;Susan Blumenthal;Carolyn Peterson;Denise Rusoff;John Schroeder. Staff: H. Sieverding, C. Guttman,K.Ross;media;other interested parties. 1. Site Plan Review Decision-Wal*Mart Kay stated that the Planning Board has completed the environmental review process and at this time is in the site plan review process. He said he felt that the Board has tried to be fair and reasonable as to public participation throughout the whole process and that the Board followed the quasi-judicial process required by law. Schroeder read aloud the following proposed resolution and made a motion to pass it. Adams seconded the motion. WHEREAS,in determining whether to approve, approve with modifications in the form of conditions or not approve site development plans,the Planning and Development Board is governed by all applicable laws,ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to the City of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance and Site Development Plan Review Ordinance;and WHEREAS,as a part of its site plan review process,the Planning and Development Board is obligated to comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Regulations (SEQR)and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance(CEQR),and WHEREAS,pursuant to the requirements of SEQR and CEQR,the Planning and Development Board has taken a hard look at the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart Department Store at 398 -400 Elmira Road and identified a variety of mitigation measures that,if incorporated into a final site plan, would mitigate,to the maximum extent practicable,those impacts, and WHEREAS,these mitigation measures are fully described in the Final EIS and Findings Statement prepared for this project, and WHEREAS,East Coast Development Company,the applicant,has submitted one site plan(Alternative SE-1)and informally discussed another site plan(Alternative 5)for the proposed Wal-Mart development, and Minutes of October 26, 1995 Meeting 2 WHEREAS,neither of these plans minimizes or avoids adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,and WHEREAS,the Board,in its analysis of the environmental impacts created by this project has developed a sample mitigation model,set forth in the Final EIS,that it concludes will mitigate,to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process,and WHEREAS,Alternative SE-1 proposes development beyond the boundaries of the zoning variance area and,therefore,does not conform to either the terms of the conditional use variance granted by the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals for the applicant's proposed project or the City's Zoning Ordinance,and WHEREAS,Alternative 5 has not been formally submitted and only consists of a single drawing and,therefore,does not meet the submission requirements of the City's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance,and WHEREAS,either of these plans would have been acceptable to the Board if they had been modified to be consistent with the site development guidelines in the Final EIS and to incorporate all of the Board's mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIS and Findings Statement, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the applicant's proposed plan Alternative SE-1 is not approved since it does not comply with the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and fails to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable,and be it further RESOLVED,that Alternative 5 is not approved since it does not meet the submission requirements of the City's Site Development Plan Review Ordinance and fails to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable. Blumenthal stated her views on the project: I am going to vote against the board's resolutions to deny the Wal-Mart application. First,I would like to say that I am neither"for nor against" Wal-Mart. Rather,I am a participant in a process that presumably measures as objectively as possible the merits of a site plan for a project and the associated environmental review that is required to take place with it. My underlying premise is that I believe that Wal-Mart will come to this county,if not this year or next,then in the near future. Wal-Mart is a reality and eventually they will be here. They have built 50 other stores in New York State and this is a lucrative market for them. Minutes of October 26, 1995 Meeting 3 I believe that the planning board should not reject a site within the borders of the city. A store at this site will be more environmentally sound than building one in outlying areas. If Wal-Mart is built outside the city in a rural area,it could mean that the landscape will be marred in a rural environment. I do not believe that our downtown will suffer less by having Wal-Mart in an outlying area. In fact,if the tax base erodes in the city,there will be less money to provide any amenities for downtown,let alone the basic city services,like firefighters, or other services,like funding for theaters and other human service needs. City departments which provide basic services are understaffed, and there will be difficult decisions about whether to maintain the streets and parks or provide capital improvements for the Commons. In other words, more competition for limited funds. In addition,there is the potential for people to visit the downtown if they are in proximity to the Wal-Mart store. I have run across many people in this area who never step foot in the city of Ithaca,e.g.people from Lansing and Cayuga Heights, and they could make side trips to the downtown with a Wal-Mart on the Elmira. If a store is built outside the city limits,it is less likely this could happen. I believe it is in the city's best interests to have the building at this site because at least some benefits will be accrued to the city. There will be tax benefits to the city from this project with a low estimate of$280,00. In addition,there will be taxes from the spin-off development of this project. These dollars will go to another municipality if this project is not located in the city and we will not gain anything. In addition,the project is projected to add 40 jobs to the city economy, after losses in other places are incorporated into the original projection that Wal-Mart provided. While these are not all high-paying jobs,and not the kind of jobs that the city has a policy of pursuing through such programs as the Community Development Block Grant program, there are many people in this community who would welcome the opportunity to take these positions. With respect to the downtown,it is relatively healthy and it has found a niche in the market with specialty shops and boutiques. As for Woolworth's,we must continue to support our downtown anchor,but even if our local Woolworth continues to be one of the strongest in the country,decisions made at the national level could close that store and downtown would be without an anchor even if Wal-Mart is not built on the Elmira Road. In addition,the environmental laws are not in place to protect one store that will be affected by a proposed project. Minutes of October 26, 1995 Meeting 4 Downtown must continue to take a proactive role in determining its future. Efforts are currently underway to establish a business improvement district which will serve a smaller area than proposed in the last go-round. Property owners and shop keepers should join together to support this endeavor which can do much to enhance downtown's business climate. Other measures should be adopted to improve customer service and expand shopping hours. At the same time, the city must work with the private sector on issues related to appearance, safety, and parking. Our downtown is not a place frozen in time, static in nature. It is ever-changing and adapting to new developments and needs. Witness the revival of the theatre district downtown. And the county is considering moving some of its large offices (DSS)to a downtown location in the near future. That will mean the addition of about 250 jobs,with people to shop and eat in the downtown stores and restaurants. Other recruitment efforts can be done if the business improvement district is adopted. 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. There will be an impact,but I do not believe that the view from the hiking trails at Buttermilk Falls State Park will be significantly large enough to merit the actions the board has taken and that the environmental impacts from this project can be mitigated. 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. The role of the planning board is to review the project based on environmental impacts,and not on whether the community "needs" a project, or what the applicant's labor practices are. Whether people want another discount department store is not up to the planning board. Nor is whether the applicant has sweat labor shops in Bangladesh supposed to be a consideration. Wal-Mart may not be better than K-Mart or Woolworth's with respect to its employment practices. I would also like to give a response and another perspective on what I believe is a misperception about Wal-Mart's behavior during the course of the review process. Several people made comments during the last public hearing about Wal-Mart's attitude of arrogance and how Wal-mart has been uncooperative and unwilling to compromise. One person asked, Minutes of October 26, 1995 Meeting 5 Have we seen them at all offer to work with us?" The answer to the latter question is yes, and I would like to offer one example. In the spring of 1994, Steve Hutchinson,Wal-Mart's developer, suggested that the planning board have some workshops with him to discuss the proposed site plan. The board refused because it wanted to first complete the environmental review process. I pointed out at two different meetings of the board that in all the years that I had been involved in site plan review the board had never not talked with developers about their projects while their projects were undergoing environmental review. I felt it was important to engage the developer in discussions so that board members'initial concerns could be explicit at the outset and that Mr.Hutchinson's ideas and mitigation proposals could be expressed. I do not believe this would have precluded the board or other members of the public from identifying other matters during the environmental review process. I believe there would have been a greater chance for a win-win situation under those circumstances. Schroeder stated that there were discussions with the developer and that the Board's obligation is to judge the environmental impacts at the specific site in question,rather than to base a decision on the fear that worse environmental impacts might hypothetically occur at some other unknown site. Kay stated that he has taken very seriously many of the issues that Blumenthal raised including tax revenues,but he believes the resolution is consistent with the Board's attempts to do their responsibility under the law,which is to identify environmental impacts and propose mitigative measures. The vote on the resolution was 5-1,with Blumenthal opposed.