Loading...
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.