Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1994-04-26 Board of Planning and Development MINUTES April 26, 1994 PRESENT: S.Adams, S.Blumenthal,A. Clavel,D.Kay (Chair), C.Peterson,D.Rusoff,J. Schroeder. Staff. H.M. Van Cort,H. Sieverding,L. Tsang,E.Jacobs. Also, C. Guttman, City Attorney, representatives of Wal-Mart, Sear Brown and East Coast Development Co., media and members of the public. 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. Privilege of the Floor. Chau Kay polled the audience to determine which agenda items they were interested in. After learning that the majority were interested in the Wal-Mart DEIS completeness discussion,he informed them that the Board will only discuss whether the draft economic impact statement is complete and adequate for public review. He also stated that once the DEIS is considered complete, a public hearing would be scheduled, and that this meeting was not a public hearing. Anyone who wanted to comment on the completeness of the DEIS during privilege of the floor could do so, but their comments will not be placed in the record for inclusion in the final environmental impact statement. He asked that people limit their comments to the issue of completeness, and not to exceed three minutes. People who spoke were: Jerold Cowles,Doria Higgins, Dick Flaville,Martha Fischer, Dan Hoffman,Guy Gerard,Cathy Vallake,Tim Allen,Elizabeth Dissen,Betsy Darlington, David Nutter, Cecilia Wiles,Brad Gorman,Laura Marks, Fay Gougakis, Bernadette Fioca,Alan Cohen,Jill Brantley,Martin Kelly, Peter MacDonald(for the CAC). Summary of comments made regarding the incompleteness of the DEIS: It does not include the impact Wal-Mart stores have had on communities across the country, nor does it include a discussion about reinvesting profits back into the community. The DEIS does not include discussion of long-term economic impacts,nor does it discuss the economic impact of losing Woolworth or CVS, or the impact on downtown sales. It does not include the number and types of jobs that will be offered as well as pay levels. The DEIS does not address site maintenance, on-site circulation and parking. It does not include discussion of alternatives such as building only within the B-5 zone, nor does it adequately discuss the likelihood of the store being located somewhere else in or on the edge of the Ithaca urbanized area. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the visual impacts on surrounding areas. It does not discuss impacts on Buttermilk Falls Park and tourism. There is inadequate discussion concerning the loss of park land and substitute park lands for Southwest Park,and there is no discussion of the impact on anadromous trout in the Inlet. The DEIS does not adequately cover bike and pedestrian issues,nor does it adequately discuss traffic impacts. Minutes of April 26, 1994 -2- 3. Wal-Mart Following an extensive,detailed discussion,the Board reached the following decision. The City of Ithaca Board of Planning and Development determines that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Wal-Mart Department Store proposed for Elmira Road,prepared by the Sear-Brown Group and submitted on behalf of East Coast Development Co. on February 22, 1994,is inadequate and not satisfactory with respect to its scope,content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing public review for the following reasons: II. Description of Proposed Action G. Site Maintenance 1. The DEIS does not adequately describe procedures for site maintenance such as snow removal,ice control,yard maintenance and the use of chemicals and salts. III. Environmental Setting Natural Resources B. Water Resources - Surface 2. The DEIS does not adequately describe existing drainage area, the pattern and extent of the Cayuga Inlet floodplain and the potential for flooding. The DEIS does not include a map showing (1)the project site and its immediate environs,including the nearby Cayuga Inlet, and(2)the boundaries of the floodway zone and of all the standard flood hazard areas (100-year, 10-year, etc.) per FEMA definitions. Human Resources A. Transportation 3. Pedestrians and Bicyclists a. The DEIS does not provide an adequate description of existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle routes,including routes along Route 13, the proposed pedestrian/bike trail along Cayuga Inlet, and the pedestrian bike spur which would connect the Cayuga Inlet trail to the Town of Ithaca South Hill Recreationway via the old railroad right-of-way. D. Visual and Cultural Resources 4. The DEIS does not adequately describe proposed project in terms of compatibility and visual impact on the areas of Southwest Park substitute park land identified in Chapter 757 of NYS laws of 1985,nor does it adequately describe any visual impact of proposed project on proposed bikeway on top of levee. Minutes of April 26, 1994 -3- IV. Anticipated Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project Natural Resources D. Ecological Resources 1 The DEIS does not adequately analyze the impact of project on anadromous rainbow trout in the Cayuga Inlet. Human Resources D. Visual and Cultural Resources 2. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the impact of the project on the several plroposed pedestrian/bike routes adjacent to or near the project site. 5. The DEIS does not adequately discuss impact of project on proposed "substitute" Southwest Park(as identified in Chapter 757 of NYS laws of 1985),especially on areas of park closest to project site; identify park/open space opportunities lost by unavailability of floodway portion of Havlik parcel (which is designated for acquisition as part of the future City/Town park). G. Neighborhoods 1. The DEIS does not adequately analyze the impact of the proposed project lighting plan on surrounding neighborhoods. V. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact Human Resources 2. The DEIS does not adequately describe mitigation measures which will be taken to mitigate the effect of any inconsistency of the proposed project with existing land use plans, zoning requirements and established development patterns in the area. Furthermore,the DEIS does not adequately discuss mitigating measures for the impacts of proposed project on Southwest Park substitute park land. 4. The DEIS does not adequately identify mitigation measures for anticipated impact on scenic and other visual resources in the project area. Specifically,there is no discussion of mitigating any negative visual impact on Buttermilk Falls State Park. It should identify mitigation measures for anticipated impact on scenic and other visual resources,including proposed pedestrian and bicycle routes. VII. Alternatives The DEIS does not adequately evaluate the following alternatives: 2. Alternative Sites and Locations. The DEIS does not describe alternate sites that have been or may be considered by the project sponsor. Minutes of April 26, 1994 -4- 5. The DEIS does not adequately analyze,visually or narratively, alternative designs and configurations of the proposed development including various sizes of the building,a two-story structure or reconfiguring the building layout, nor does)it identify or analyze alternative technologies incorporated in site and building design. 6. The DEIS does not adequately develop the alternative of building the proposed project on only that portion of the site which is presently zoned B-5. The DEIS does not contain an adequate discussion of the entire greenway system that begins with Southwest Park, Cass Park,Allan H.Treman State Marine Park and includes the Black Diamond Trail, and extends along the Flood Control Channel including potential substitute land near the project, and potential substitute park land for Southwest Park along both sides of the Cayuga Inlet, and Buttermilk Falls State Park to Robert H. Treman State Park. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the impact of the proposed project on the existing and proposed park lands and does not adequately identify significant impacts and mitigations. Appendix A 1. The DEIS is inadequate in that it does not include a more thorough discussion of the economic impact of losing CVS and/or Woolworth on Ithaca's downtown business district. 2. The DEIS is inadequate in that it does not adequately quantify the number and types of jobs to be created and the compensation levels of those jobs. 3. The DEIS does not adequately address the last sentence of the scope which reads "Wherever appropriate the consultant should use Wal-Mart's prior experience in New York and other locations in New England,relative to its impact on economic issues." A list of previous studies of Wal-Mart's economic impact (including studies on impact on regions outside the Northeast) should be appended to the report, to aid members of the public or Board members who wish to do further research. The motion was moved b Schroeder, seconded b Adams and passed 5-2 Clavel Y � Y � P � Blumenthal opposed). Minutes of April 26, 1994 -5- 2. Preliminary Site Plan Review/Environmental Review/Public Hearin A. Weitzman & Son/Steel Warehouse/132 Cherry St. The proposed development is a one-story steel warehouse/retail building with a parking area to be paved with crusher run stones,and includes service area at the corner of Cherry and W. Clinton Streets.' New trees will be planted along the Flood Control Channel. WHEREAS, a steel warehouse and service center is proposed to be developed at 132 Cherry Street, and WHEREAS, a site development plan has been submitted on 2-1-94 for review and approval by this Board,!and WHEREAS,the proposed development is a Type I Action, and LEAF parts 1,2, and 3 have been completed,and WHEREAS,the CAC, at its 2-10-94 meeting,had reviewed the proposal and had recommended changes to the site development plan, and WHEREAS,the Codes,and Administration Committee, at its 2-15-94 meeting, had reviewed the proposal and recommended changes to mitigate the project's visual impact on the environment, and WHEREAS,revisions have been made to the site plan according to comments by the CAC and the Codes and Administration Committee,and WHEREAS,the revised site plan was reviewed by the CAC at its 3-10-94 meeting, and WHEREAS,the revised site plan(received 4-14-94) and samples of building materials were reviewed by the Committee at its 4-19-94 meeting, and WHEREAS,the Committee found the revised proposal acceptable except for certain plant species selection and arrangement,and WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed comments from the CAC(memo dated 2-11-94 and 3-10-94) on the environmental review of the subject proposal,and hereby does adopt the findings and conclusions set forth on the LEAF,and WHEREAS,the NYSDEC had been notified on this development proposal, and P Minutes of April 26, 1994 -6- WHEREAS,the public heating for the purpose of considering approval of the proposed site development plan has been concluded,now,therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Planning and Development, as lead agency,hereby determine that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration, and be it further RESOLVED,that the Preliminary and Final Approval of the site development plan be granted,with the condition that the planting plan be revised in accordance to recommendations by the Department of Planning and Development. Clavel, seconded by Schroeder,moved a negative declaration of environmental significance,carried 7-0. Clavel, seconded by Blumenthal,moved the resolution,carried 7-0. B. Cornell University/Central Avenue reconstruction The proposal is that an'abandoned section of Central Avenue will be reconstructed for pedestrian use. A walkway will lead from the intersection of Campus Rd. and Central Ave. up to McGraw Tower. The open space between the Campus Store and Willard Straight is also redesigned with proposed new grading,paving and plantings. Both the walk and the new plaza area will be constructed of concrete with granite pavers. WHEREAS,the site development plan for the reconstruction of the abandoned section of Central Avenue (from Campus Road to McGraw Tower) has been submitted(3-29-94) for review and approval by this Board, and WHEREAS, the proposal is to develop a 40-ft wide pedestrian way,including a plaza between Willard Straight Hall and the Campus Store, and WHEREAS,the proposed development is a Type I action, and LEAF parts 1,2, and 3 have been completed,and WHEREAS,this Board has reviewed comments from the CAC(memo dated 3-10-94) on the environmental review of the subject proposal, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusion set forth on the LEAF, and Minutes of April 26, 1994 -7- WHEREAS,the Codes and Administration Committee,at its 4-19-94 meeting,has concluded that the proposed project will bring major improvements in the visual quality of the area, and WHEREAS, the public,hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the proposed site development plan has been concluded, now,therefore be it RESOLVED,that the Board of Planning and Development,as lead agency,hereby determine that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED,that this resolution shall constitute notice of this negative declaration, and be it further RESOLVED,that Preliminary Site Plan Approval be granted, with the condition that the site plan be modified to address the following issues: all items in the 4-15-94'memo from the Fire Chief; bicycle circulation and parking; chemical-free grounds maintenance; plant species selection and other planting plan details; extension northward of the formal tree planting. There was considerable discussion concerning bike zones and bike paths. Blumenthal, seconded by Rusoff,moved a negative declaration of environmental significance,and it passed,7-0. Preliminary Site Plan Approval with consideration of improved definition of the interior and exterior allay extending closer to the Tower was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Blumenthal,7-0. C. 151 Dryden Road/Apartment Building The proposed development is a new six-story building containing 150 student apartments, ground level retail space,and 63 parking spaces. The project requires demolition of five existing structures. At the public hearing Andrea Jackson of 123 Dryden Road presented a petition to the Board which she said had over 300 signatures. She said that everybody whom she had asked about the project except one was opposed to the construction of a six-story building on Dryden Road. Ms. Jackson said that it would create too much density, traffic problems and noise. She said that mature students would not want to live in such a noisy environment. Maureen Drum of 123 Dryden road also spoke against the proposal, remarking that it would obstruct views and make Collegetown look like New York City. Minutes of April 26, 1994 -8- Schroeder, seconded by Clavel, moved that the Planning Board declare itself lead agency for the environmental review, and it passed unanimously. Schroeder then moved that the public hearing be adjourned to Monday,May 9 at 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Clavel, and carried unanimously. 7. Zoning Appeals Report After a brief discussion, Clavel moved, seconded by Schroeder,that the Board approve the recommendations of the Codes Committee regarding this month's zoning appeals. Motion failed for lack of a majority of the body. Meeting adjourned at 1:45 a.m. epi-AprMmin.doc(8/29/94) i i MEMORANDUM TO: City of Ithaca Planning Board FROM: Ithaca Bicycle Advisory Council Date: April 20,1994 At the March 17, 1994 IBAC meeting,concerns were raised about the proposal to build Wal Mart on the currently designated site. These concerns involve the impact on bicyclists of both the site itself and the proposed layout. We agreed to relay this information to the planning board and urge consideration of these concerns when determining the thoroughness of the current DEIS and the appropriateness of permitting such development at that site. Bicycle travel is not adequately considered in the DEIS.The report indicates only light cyclist and pedestrian travel at present and states that the proposed development " is not expected to increase the numbers of pedestrians" in the area. This did not consider the proposals of SW park and the Black Diamond Trail. Further, current development in that area is not bicycle or pedestrian friendly even though the level grade and reasonable proximity to Downtown make the area a viable destination for non-drivers.There are no sidewalks, walk signals near the levee and Spencer Road, or bike parking facilities. Unlike Woolworth's downtown, the distance of businesses in that area from the street adds time, hazard, and inconvenience for those not driving cars. With the addition of sidewalks, signals, connector paths from bike trails and bike parking, the possibility of non-auto travel could be greater. Certainly, given the proposed location of WalMart and the problems noted above, pedestrian and cyclist travel may not increase as quickly as it might. This would not necessarily be related to the needs or preferences of cyclists and pedestrians but, more likely due to a hazardous and inconvenient plan. Further,a shift of travel from a central to a peripheral location puts a strain on alternative forms of travel. We would hope for improvements in that area rather than more of the same problems. In general, we support such areas as Downtown that are accessible to non-drivers. The DEIS fails to consider proposed changes in the SW area that include the Black Diamond Trail , a connector road, and the development of SW Park.These proposals capitalize on the unique natural qualities of that area. The levee, itself, is proposed as a spur access path to the Black Diamond Trail. While brief mention is made of the visual impact of Wal.Mart on the trail, the effects of increased auto traffic, noise level,and the general disruption of a proposed recreation area have not been addressed. Use of this area for recreational purposes is supported by the Southwest Area Land Use Study that refers to such a recommendation by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Black Diamond Trail will benefit both local bicyclists and potential tourists. It is important not to minimize the benefit that this area holds for residents and tourists especially when an alternative site may be available to WalMart. We are also concerned about the traffic safety impact of this development. Increased auto traffic flow adds to the hazards of bicycle travel as do potential problems with drainage in an area vulnerable to flooding. Drainage is of prime concern for cyclists as roads and shoulders become difficult during the Spring thaw and heavy rains. We understand that there are many factors weighing on the board's decision and that these decisions have long-term impact that can work for or against bicycle travel. We ask that no plan be approved that does not address the problems noted above. We also want to stress our strong preference for development that not only accommodates but encourages alternative forms of travel. April 21, 1994 To: City of Ithaca Planning Board From: Yarrow Nelsonarrrov ✓"�f'6`'� School of Civil and Environmental Engineering APR 2 215 Hollister Hall 2L7 Phone: 255-3337 E-mail: ymnl@cornell.edu DE�A�TMENPF T OF Fax: 255-9004 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT Re: Bikes on Central Avenue. I have just seen the plans for redesigning the area of Central Avenue between the intersection with Campus Rd. and Willard Straight Hall. I understand that this plan is coming before the Planning Board. As an employee of Cornell and a bicycle commuter and bicycling advocate,I am writing to express my personal concerns about this plan. I was pleased to see that this area would finally be landscaped, but I was shocked to see that the plan has no accommodations for bicyclists. There is currently a high volume of bike traffic on the closed roadway leading to Willard Straight Hall. There is also ample room in this corridor to provide a designated bike path. I envision a "Bicycle Boulevard" that could add to the aesthetics of the design as well as provide separation between bicyclists and pedestrians. Such a bike path could also double as an access road for service and emergency vehicles. I fully support the bicycle dismount zone designated between Willard Straight Hall and the Campus Store up to Uris and Olin Libraries. This area has intense pedestrian traffic, and the pathway is narrow and steep. People riding bicycles in this area are both a nuisance and a safety hazard for the pedestrians. In contrast,the corridor along what is now the closed section of Central Ave. is wide and nearly level. This area should not be designated a bicycle dismount zone. There is currently no delineation between bicycling and pedestrian pathways along this closed section of roadway. This could easily lead to bicycle/pedestrian conflicts. Clear designation of a bike path, leaving all other parts of the area for only pedestrians would greatly reduce the potential for such conflicts. Such a path would serve as a symbol for Cornell's support of bicycling transportation,and would probably garner more respect among bicyclists for the dismount zone. My understanding was that Cornell was trying to make the campus more "bike friendly," and that we were trying to encourage bicycling as a means of reducing car traffic and parking shortages as well as air, noise and visual pollution. Extending bicycle dismount zones serves to discourage rather than encourage bicycling. As we all know, we missed a lot of opportunities for incorporating bicycling into past projects. I would hate to see us miss another one. GOOD EVENING. AS A STRONG BELIEVER IN PARTICIPATORY GOVERNMENT,I'M GLAD TO SEE SO MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE TONIGHT. Since there are so many people here who may have never been to our meetings before,I'd like to start this evening with a sentence or two on the Planning and Development Board. Then I'll turn to tonight's agenda. First, there are seven voting members of the board. It is our job to consider a variety of planning related issues in general. We also must make decisions about certain kinds of development proposals. Depending on the kind of issue we are considering, we need to follow one of several sets of rather complicated rules. I know that it is not always easy to understand our procedures. Finally, I think it is fair to remind you that we are all appointed volunteers. (I might add that several of us start to get noticably grouchier and more incoherent as the evening gets late, so it is my goal to finish this meeting before that starts to happen.) Finally,I should note that the board is supported by members of the City Planning and legal staff, several members of which you will also be hearing from tonight. OK. I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST,SO I'D LIKE TO START BY GOING OVER THE AGENDA AND FINDING OUT WHERE YOUR INTERESTS ARE. I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE AGENDA... (for each item,how many are here for that item?) I SINCE MOST OF YOU ARE HERE FOR THE WALMART DISCUSSION LET ME SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THAT NOW. TO BEGIN WITH,THIS BOARD'S FORMAL RESPONSIBILITY THIS EVENING IS TO CONSIDER THE "COMPLETENESS AND ADEQUACY FOR REVIEW BY THE PUBLIC" OF THE EIS WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGARDING A PROPOSED WALMART. THOSE TWO TERMS(c&a)ARE LEGAL TERMS OF ART,AND THERE IS CERTAINLY SOME ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR MEANING. HOWEVER,SEVERAL THINGS ARE CLEAR. FIRST,I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE MUST MAKE OUR JUDGEMENT WITH REFERENCE TO A FORMAL SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE DEVELOPER LAST YEAR. MORE IMPORTANTLY,I MUST EMPHASIZE THAT WE ARE TO JUDGE COMPLETENESS AND ADEQUACY FOR REVIEW BY THE PUBLIC. IN OTHER WORDS, WE MUST DECIDE TONIGHT WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THE EIS IS READY TO BE RELEASED FOR FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT. UNITL WE DO THIS,WE CANNOT BEGIN TO FORMALLY RECORD THE STATEMENTS OR REACTIONS OF THE PUBLIC AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL NOT LISTEN TO OR RECORD ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY TONIGHT. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT ANYTHING YOU SAY TONIGHT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE RECORD. WE HAVE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING AT WHICH YOUR COMMENTS WILL GET ONTO THIS RECORD FOR THE END OF MAY (31ST?). OK. I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED NOW. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR,ETC. HOW MANY SPEAKERS ON WALMART. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS T 3 MINUTES MAXIMUM. PLEASE TRY NOT TO BE REPETITIVE OF POINTS CLEARLY MADE BY OTHERS. REMEMBER YOU WILL HAVE SEVERAL OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK ON THIS SUBJECT,AND WE HAVE A VERY FULL AGENDA TONIGHT SO I WILL BE STRICT ABOUT THE TIME LIMIT. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR IT IS NOT OUR JOB TONIGHT TO DECIDE ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE EIS,OR WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS IT MAKES. BOTH WE AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT LATER.