HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1995-12-27 Approved 2/27/96
Planning and Development Board
MINUTES
Special Meeting
December 27, 1995
Present: David Kay, Chair;Susan Blumenthal;Steven Ehrhardt;John Schroeder. Staff:
L. Tsang;K.Ross; representatives from Cornell Federal Credit Union;media.
1. Site Plan Review- Cornell Federal Credit Union-401-415 Meadow Street
Kay commenced the meeting with an update regarding the concerns addressed in
the Dec. 19 letter from DoT. John Lavrich, the architect for CFCU, stated that in
revising the site plan according to DoT's standard for the location of curb cuts,
they have reduced the number of parking spaces in the paved area and moved the
building five feet north. He also stated that since CFCU would prefer to keep the
building the size it is, a small section of the sidewalk will have to jog out about 1
1/2 feet into the State's right-of-way,but the rest will be entirely on the property.
Kay stated they would continue the public hearing. Schroeder had some questions
about the planting plan. He said the trees should be between the sidewalk and the
street,as opposed to the other way. John Lavrich said they would be revising the
planting plan.
There was some discussion regarding the issues raised by the County Planning
Department,namely precluding left hand turns onto Meadow Street. It was stated
that this would not be an issue in two years when the Fulton/Meadow work(on
the Rt. 96 project)was done. Ehrhardt raised concern about the construction
period stating that there should be a limit on the time of construction. He
suggested 8:00 or 8:30 instead of 10:00(as in the Noise Ordinance). Kay asked
that staff follow-up on precisely what was in the Noise Ordinance. He closed the
public hearing.
Schroeder moved the following resolution for a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance and Ehrhardt seconded the motion.
WHEREAS, the site development plan for a new 3355 sf bank building and remote
tellers to accommodate five lanes of drive-through traffic was submitted
(11-20-95)for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is a Type I Action as set forth in the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance,and the full Environmental Assessment
Form (EAF)parts 1,2, and 3 were completed,and
Minutes of December 27, 1995 Meeting 2
WHEREAS, the review process has identified, as noted in the EAF parts 2 and 3,
potentially large impacts on visual resource and on the character of the community,
and
WHEREAS,mitigating measures for the identified major impacts are already
included in the proposed plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board, as the Lead Agency for this
environmental review,has reviewed all the application materials and additional
supporting documents, including comments from the Conservation Advisory
Council,as well as comments from the involved agency,NYSDOT, and Tompkins
County Department of Planning, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that this Board determine that the proposed project will result in no
significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration for purposes of
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed according to the
requirements contained in Part 617.
Carried unanimously.
With regards to the site plan,there was discussion on the issues of the fence,the
planting plan and the question of where to place a bus shelter,if required.
Blumenthal said that it should be stated that the applicant has agreed to the
possible provision of a bus shelter. After some discussion,it was stated that the
Ithaca-Tompkins County Transit Center would pay for this. Blumenthal moved
and Ehrhardt seconded the following resolution for Preliminary Approval
Considered Final Approval with Conditions.
WHEREAS, the site development plan for a new 3355 sf bank building and remote
tellers to accommodate five lanes of drive-through traffic was submitted
(11-20-95)for review and approval by the Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Department,the Office
of the City Engineer,the Building Department, and the Fire Department, and
WHEREAS, the application was also reviewed by the involved agency,NYSDOT,
and the Tompkins County Department of Planning,and
WHEREAS, the site plan has been revised according to recommendations from
City staff,the NYSDOT, and the Tompkins County Department of Planning, and
WHEREAS,the applicant has agreed to allow for a possible future placement(by
the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transit Center) of a bus shelter, and
Minutes of December 27, 1995 Meeting 3
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board has considered comments by the
NYSDOT and Tompkins County Department of Planning, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted and the environmental review of the
proposal was completed, and
WHEREAS, the proposed site development plan was found to be satisfactory in
terms of criteria of site plan approval, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval be granted,with the
condition that the Department of Planning and Development further review and
approve the following:
1. the detailed design of the 8' fence;
2. the revised planting plan; and
3. the possible placement of a bus shelter by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transit
Center.
Carried unanimously.
2. Approval of Minutes
Schroeder moved approval of the 10/24/95 Minutes with corrections. Kay
seconded the motion.
Carried unanimously.
Blumenthal said she wanted to correct a statement in the Minutes of October 19, 1995,
which said that the Board never talked to the applicant. The Board agreed to note the
following statements as clarification to what was stated in the October 19, 1995 Minutes,
since the Minutes had already been approved.
* Blumenthal wished to amend the Minutes of October 19, 1995 which are incorrect.
What she said at that meeting was not"that the Board never talked to the applicant
about the site plan,"but rather that the Board had initially refused to talk with the
applicant about the site plan when he had requested and did not meet with him until a
year later.
* Blumenthal also wished to amend the Minutes of October 19, 1995 to state that she
disagreed with the Schroeder statement in paragraph 2. She clarified that members of
the Board had met informally with the applicant on four occasions but she did not feel
that the Board had responded to the applicant's suggested mitigation measures
informally proposed during those meetings.