Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-P&DB-1996-02-27 (/7'q Cie,- Approved 3/26/96 Planning and Development Board MINUTES February 27, 1996 Present: Clarence Reed, Chair;Steve Ehrhardt;David Kay;Jane Marcham;Ellen McCollister;Carolyn Peterson;Scott Whitham. Staff: Herman Sieverding;Mariette Geldenhuys, City Attorney;K.Ross;applicant;other interested parties. 1. Privilege of the Floor Al Smith of 707 Cayuga Street said that he wanted to address the Wegmans issue, namely the traffic problem. His concern was that Wegmans would increase traffic through the Southside neighborhood. He stated that he was personally in favor of a bigger store, but it will affect neighborhoods and traffic,and he hoped the Planning Board would address all of these issues. Jill Brantley of 613 Utica Street spoke to the issue of the environment. She stated that citizen boards must step in to oversee the environment because there has not been enough done. Guy Gerard also spoke regarding the Wegmans issue stating that the Board should be aware of the CAC comments. 2. Discussion of Environmental Review-Wegmans Clarence Reed,Chair,stated that the main issue is for the Board to decide whether or not a new environmental impact study should be done and why or why not. Mariette Geldenhuys,City Attorney, said that in order for the Board to make a determination on the issue,parts 2 and 3 of the LEAF have to be completed. She said that the Board has to decide that there will be no adverse environmental impacts in order not to do the impact statement. Herman Sieverding stated that the lead agency must determine significance and whether there may be an adverse environmental effect. This decision is based on a completed LEAF including Parts II and III. He said there were a number of environmental concerns including a letter from DoT which said that the project needs more detailed traffic analysis. Mariette Geldenhuys stated that because this is a Type I action, the presumption is that it requires an environmental impact statement. She also said that you cannot impose conditions on a Type I action and you cannot condition a negative declaration; the determination has to be on the project as it is designed. Minutes of February 27, 1996 Meeting 2 There was some discussion on whether there was a statute of limitations on doing an environmental impact statement and on a supplemental EIS. Geldenhuys stated that this was a separate action, but the Board could still look at the materials from 1978. She stated that a supplemental EIS is normally done after a generic EIS and before a Findings Statement is filed. Sieverding stated that because there are no parts 2 and 3 of an LEAF, the CAC does not have a recommendation. He said that the Board can work on the site plan while doing the environmental review,but the decision on the environmental review must be made first. Ken O'Neill, the Director of Engineering for Wegmans, stated that he believes there is sufficient information available for the Board to substantiate a position. He also said they were not looking to skip the environmental process. Frank Scieremammano of Wegmans stated that he believes a negative declaration should be issued at this time. He asked the Board what substantive information they were looking for that they don't already have. The three procedural issues he discussed were: (1)comparison of the project in 1978; (2) site coverage and drainage; and(3)how close the development is to the flood control channel. After a lengthy discussion about the traffic issues and drainage,the Board concluded that these were two important issues to look at. Tom Greiner,the attorney for Wegmans, said that there was no statute of limitations for SEQR and if the Board chose to do so they could require a new SEQR review. He said that this was not a new plan and that the Board should look at the project with a Wegmans already there,as it is. He stated that a conditional negative declaration is appropriate,but it is not permitted on a Type I action. Gary Wellison,the Store Manager of Wegmans, stated that what they are searching for is the information that the Board needs in order to make their decision. Staff suggested the Board not make a determination of significance until Parts 2 and 3 are completed to better identify the traffic,drainage and other environmental issues. The vote was unanimous. Sieverding stated that staff would complete the LEAF and get it out to the CAC so that the Codes Committee would have the CAC's comments in time for the Codes meeting on March 19. Minutes of February 27, 1996 Meeting 3 3. Discussion/Comments on Ordinances Amending certain sections of the city of Ithaca Municipal Code A. Off-Street Parking(Sec.325-20) There was some discussion about the drainage section and the definition of "combined curb cuts"on page 2. It was stated that the Ordinance is not demanding that existing parking lots fix problems that are already there. Whitham stated that there would always be some runoff in City drains. It was suggested that the word"primary"be added in the last sentence of this section. There was some discussion regarding the landscaping requirements referenced on page 10 in #4. Marcham stated that there were two ways to comply,one being to comply with the numbers and the other to comply with the planting and landscaping. Peterson commented on the section entitled"Screening"on page 8. She suggested that lighting might be added in as a requirement. B. Exterior Property Maintenance(Sec.I-1,325-23,325-47 and 331-4) Reed had a question about the section discussing the issue of plastic bags as durable containers for garbage. Marcham said that there was a section of the law that stipulated that garbage can be put in plastic bags. It was suggested that the reference to"stored outside" be changed to"placed outside". There was some discussion on the section which talked about storage of unlicensed motor vehicles. It was stated that one car could be stored in a yard within public view. There was also some discussion on the sections dealing with height of vegetation and composting material. 4. Zoning Appeals (No report) 5. Reports A. Director No report. Minutes of February 27, 1996 Meeting 4 B. Chair The Chair distributed a handout from the Tompkins County Planning Federation for a SEQRA Workshop to be held on March 20. C. Board of Public Works Ehrhardt spoke about the issue of traffic calming and the possible creation of a neighborhood parking lot on Cliff Street using fill dug out from the Octopus project. He said the City would have to purchase property from INHS. He said that the Board did not like the idea,but the Committee favored it. D. Planning Committee Marcham reported that the Committee was focusing on the two Ordinances discussed above,namely the Off-Street Parking and Exterior Property Maintenance Ordinances. 8. Approval of Minutes Peterson moved to approve the 12/19/95 Minutes as amended. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. It was decided that there needed to be further discussion on the resolution regarding the Planning Board Zoning Variance Policy and Procedures. The item was referred to the Chair of the Codes Committee. Carried unanimously. Kay moved to approve the 12/27/95 Minutes as amended. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.