City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, April 1, 2003, 7:30 p.m. Memorial City Hall
Present: John Breanick, John Rogalski, Sam Giangreco, Nicki Wright, Mark DiVietro, Laurie Michelman. Absent: Donna Bruno
Staff: Nancy Hussey, Corporation Counsel; Steve Lynch, Director, OPED; Tom Weed, APD; Jim Galvin, CD Program Manager, OPED; Brian Hicks, Code Enforcement Officer
The Chair called the meeting to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes from March 4, 2003
Chair thanks everyone for coming. Let’s public know that, since most of the people are probably here for Standart Ave/Lewis St. rezoning issue, it is 5th on the agenda and welcomes anyone to step out and return at a later time if desired.
Chair asks if there are any questions or comments concerning the March 4 minutes. Asks for a motion to accept. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote in favor. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Site Plan Review for 202-204 Genesee St. Bel-Aire Apartments
Chair states that although a public hearing had already been held she will allow members of the public to speak.
Joe Camardo – Genesee St. – lives near the proposed site. Congratulates Standart Ave area for taking a stand on their similar situation. Someone profits but not the community when faced with these same conditions as on Genesee St. As an example, Westlake Ave project worked to eliminate density. This area on Genesee St. is already over congested without adding to it. The area is the size of a small back yard but 16 apartments will be added onto it. There will be about 32 additional people and their vehicles that will be added to an already crowded area and street intersection. Questions why the neighborhood is being imposed on when it is a mostly single family area. Several changes have been made without informing the neighbors. No informational meetings have
been held to voice opinions or review current site plans. Pleads with the Board to be able to voice opinion and be given opportunity to review site plans. All that can be seen is additional traffic and additional crowded conditions in an already congested area.
John Connors – Ross Pl. – shares Joe Camardo’s views. West end is becoming a tenement district. Two variances were granted for this property, use and area. The primary reason for the use variance stated was a financial hardship to the applicant (Mr. Grillo) will be created if denied. According to state law a self-created hardship is not eligible for a use variance. Is this correct?
Laurie Michelman – defers to Corporation Counsel.
Nancy Hussey- the Planning Board has no jurisdiction here. It’s an issue of law which needs to be appealed.
John Connors – if variances are valid then further actions are required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that requires an environmental assessment to be done at the site. This plan is oversized for this 3 ½-acre site. Not unreasonable to abide by strict government rules. Rules governing properties should be just as strict and should be abided by. Laws are to prevent sprawling developments like this and to just bend the rules to fit someone’s personal situation seems wrong. Applicant has a right to develop but do so within codes and regulations.
Daryl Mills – Ross Pl. – at the last meeting buffers were talked about as this thing is apparently going to be built whether people like it or not. I don’t know what kind of buffers there are, a fence was talked about but I don’t see any plans, trees, - there are 2 trees in my back yard but I don’t know whose property they are on but they would be a great addition to a buffer zone. This is going to be a large apartment building only 32’ from the rear of my own house. There are 2nd floor porches there, the sound is higher and tends to carry more. We’ve not been informed of intents for buffers and nothing has been shown to us. There was never a significant hardship shown for these to be built. This is being built only 2 feet further than
what’s allowed. It’s too close to the property line I think. Thinks more planning is needed. More talk more with the neighbors.
Chuck Mason – Genesee St. – speaking on behalf of the applicant in favor of the project. Excellent, positive development. Provides relief to desperate need for new, modern, upscale apt. housing. There is a perception of an abundance of rental housing but it is not upscale, modern, nice rental housing. Grillo is providing a significant investment and new housing. In particular it is close to downtown and should be embraced as it definitely fulfills a need. His reputation as a landlord is good. Has purchased 206 Genesee St. next to Bel-Aire which had been a problem property and he has eliminated previous problems with the building and the site has been significantly enhanced. Interiors have been renovated and rented. Exterior is being worked on.
Neighborhood will be pleasantly surprised at how well it will be managed and run. He is a young landlord in this community looking to develop a good reputation for himself. He is off to a good start and should be encouraged. He has been through meetings on this particular project for about 2 years now. Asks Board to act on tonight to get project going.
Joe Camardo – Mr. Mason is not a property owner and has nothing to gain or lose in the situation. The neighbors and owners will be subjected to further intrusions on the quiet and peacefulness of the neighborhood. Nothing significant has been done to the existing current buildings. He bought those with full view of what the neighborhood was like but now he is saying there is some type of financial desperation where additional income is needed – nothing has been done to the existing buildings. It’s unfortunate you would say this can be dumped here and it’s going to be great – we don’t know what will happen in the future, who’s going to be taking over and what people will be coming in and out – we have to live with it and deal with it - it is an intrusion
on the neighborhood.
Chair closes the public hearing. Asks the owner or representative to speak.
William Walton – project architect - speaking for the applicant – at the last meeting 3 issues needed to be address which we have come back and are prepared to address. We’ve submitted material prior to this evening to the Board for review. The project was submitted October of 2002. Basic plans have not changed except for recalculation of drainage information and additional items to be talked about tonight which were added to the landscaping in response to last month’s hearing. I have plans of the complex as well as building elevations should we wish to get into what the building will look like but I mainly would like to stick with the site.
Laurie Michelman – since we’ve already had a public hearing and have discussed most of the issues we will stick to drainage and buffers which is why it’s been brought back tonight.
William Walton – then I will turn it over to the site engineer who has provided that material and will cover the site issues to be addressed.
Scott Freeman – landscape architect - will cover 3 things. Revised storm report, pre-construction run off to bottom of the site – in post-construction a new storm system will be put in that will divert most water to existing storm drainage. Storm water that goes to the bottom of the site will be less post construction than pre. We’ve submitted those calculations to the City. Snow storage – there is a large embankment (points out area on map). There are 2 other areas here (points out on map). There are ample areas for snow storage. Buffers – existing fence at rear - new fence will be installed. Evergreen buffers will be put in 6 – 8’ Norway spruce – at rear of buildings (points out areas on map). As mentioned there is an existing
large maple tree at the rear that will be kept. The major points have been addressed. Some minor points, the building is actually 25 feet off the rear property line as required. Also, all environmental forms have been completed and submitted.
Chair asks the Board for any comments.
John Breanick – asks the type of fence to be used.
Scott Freeman - 6’ wood/pvc fence. Not just throwing it in – it will look good. A lot of plant material will be used in landscaping. Vinyl or pvc will be a lower maintenance vs. wood which will rot and have a shorter life span.
John Rogalski – is Bill Lupien satisfied with the drainage?
Laurie Michelman – yes – memos enclosed from Engineering and AFD. Reads AFD and Engineering memos.
John Breanick – it is understood there is no traffic from Bel-Aire site to Ross Pl.?
Scott Freeman – correct. The lot will be improved.
John Breanick – there will be no run off from the complex to neighboring properties?
Scott Freeman – technically there will be but it will not be increased from pre-construction amount – may even be decreased. A small diversion swale is being installed. Drainage will be at or below pre-construction conditions.
John Rogalski – is APD satisfied with traffic problems as far as access from Genesee St.?
Laurie Michelman – yes, APD is satisfied.
Tom Weed – our concern was the access to Ross Pl. but that is not being done now.
John Breanick – asks Brian Hicks if there are any Codes issues to be addressed.
Brian Hicks – has gone thru the full site plan and has no issues.
Laurie Michelman – asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – there were some comments that plans have not been seen – they are essentially the same as the plans at the last meeting. Jim Galvin will review the SEQR. We narrowed it down at the last meeting to the items that were addressed tonight. Any questions should be voiced tonight while going thru SEQR.
Jim Galvin – has copy of short EAF. Applicant provides Part I. Staff goes over Part II. Reviews part II with the Board. Reviews SEQR. Board has opportunity to vote a negative declaration that there is no environmental impact or a positive declaration that there is significant environmental impact.
Chair – asks if there are any questions. Asks for a motion on SEQR. Motion for a negative declaration made by John Rogalski, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair – next we’ll move onto site plan and ask if there is a motion to adopt site plan resolution. Motion made by Nicki Wright, seconded by Sam Giangreco.
Laurie Michelman - asks for a clarification on fencing before finalizing vote.
Scott Freeman – it’s not on the plan but it will be 6’ pvc fencing on the east side.
Nicki Wright – it will blend in?
Scott Freeman – it will be a higher quality than what is existing. Eventually the trees will take it over anyway.
William Walton – the existing fence is not on the site property.
Laurie Michelman – wants added into the resolution that a 6’ fence will be installed along 106 Ross Pl. property line. Any opposition from the Board. Asks for roll to be recalled. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Site Plan Review for Subdivision of 111 Capitol St. Ext. into two lots.
Chair invites the owner or representative to speak.
Thomas Shamon representing the owner – Map has been submitted; the lots meet or exceed all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Chair asks for summary of project.
Thomas Shamon – splitting one lot into two, parcel 1 already has an existing home, parcel 2 will be a building lot, they are both the same size – 11,500 sq. ft. fronting on Capitol St. 115 ft in frontage and 100 ft in depth.
Chair asks if any members of the public wish to be heard. Closes the public hearing and asks if any members of the Board has any questions. Asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this is a straightforward, minor subdivision. Because it is minor it is not creating any new utilities or roads, it does not require preliminary subdivision review, therefore staff recommends moving to final review. No issues in regards to SEQR. It is a clear subdivision to create a 2nd building lot that conforms to City zoning standards upon which a single family home will be built. Recommends negative declaration on SEQR and the resolution reflects approval of the subdivision.
Chair asks for a motion on SEQR. Motion for a negative declaration made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval with Laurie Michelman abstaining. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion on subdivision. Motion for approval made by John Breanick, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval with Laurie Michelman abstaining. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Site Plan Review for 30 Cross St., St. Nicholas Church social hall
Chair invites the owner or representative to speak.
James Perfield - Rte 370 Cato – president of St. Nicholas Church. The plan is for a 200 seat fellowship hall for church dinners, church school as well as continued use for alcoholics anonymous, tops and weight watchers meetings, etc.
Laurie Michelman – go over the nature of the building.
James Perfield – currently all functions are held in the church basement that’s very small that measures 30’ x 30’, church membership is about 200 people and it’s inadequate in size for those purposes, church dinners and church school. We do offer the space out for alcoholics anonymous meetings as well as tops and weight watchers. This project has been in planning since 1990, a variance had been granted in 1995 but funding was not there at the time.
Laurie Michelman – questions the parking or lack thereof.
James Perfield – the site plan allows limited parking, we can extend a current parking lot from Cottage St. over to Cross that would accommodate about 6 cars. We do not anticipate any increased traffic from this, I wish I could say building this would cause our membership to explode but we don’t anticipate that happening.
Chair – invites the public to speak.
Reverend Stephen Mack – Cottage St. – pastor of St. Nicholas – as was said this was originally approved in 1995. We have since purchased the house next door and demolished it for more room. This will provide for parking in the future. We’re doing this project without borrowing money. We have money for the hall and parking plans are in the future. Trying to keep within budget at this time. Maybe parking in a year or two but not right away. The new hall will be for church membership only and will not be rented out. Another use would be for Red Cross blood drive and food pantry in the future. We want to expand current use and facilities. Church school programs on Sunday mornings with 4 classes of 27 students. We put one class in each corner of the 30’ x 30’ room and that’s not the best situation. The only access to the restrooms is thru the class area. More room is desired to do what’s already being done – nothing is being added.
Chair – asks the Board for any questions or comments.
John Breanick – asks Tom Weed for traffic concerns.
Tom Weed – there is significant concern with APD and AFD especially concerning emergency vehicles. Would’ve liked to have seen 20 off street parking spaces but ZBA has ruled already.
Nicki Wright – regarding parking, is the maximum amount of parking 6 spaces or is that what you have now.
(Can’t hear answer)
Rev. Mack – there is a driveway behind the church that is not being used off Cottage. Plans are to connect driveway off Cottage to Cross St. entrance where there is already a driveway from the existing rectory. There used to be a church rectory and the house that was demolished so there used to be 2 houses in that space. My idea is to connect Cross St. with the Cottage St. driveway which would give us a driveway thru – if that was expanded a little it could provide some parallel parking for maybe 20 cars.
Laurie Michelman – is that something you would consider doing at this time?
Rev. Mack – if someone would like to foot the bill.
Asks the Board for any questions or comments.
Sam Giangreco – you’re saying right in the back of the church?
Rev. Mack – right behind the church now at the end of the church property is a driveway and we have a small garage there. At the very end of the original property is the start of a driveway already.
Sam Giangreco – looking at it I was wondering if more parking can be added if diagonally parked? It seems like there’s enough space.
Rev. Mack – plenty of space, depends on how used.
John Rogalski – I am an architect and I can say there is enough room there – I just laid it out on the site plan.
Rev. Mack – another problem is that the building is 94 year old and was not planned with handicapped access. Options for Independence have reviewed the plans and the new hall will be handicapped accessible with handicapped parking and emergency vehicle access.
John Rogalski – the Sons of Italy building has been sold. Can parking be used there?
Rev. Mack – it is possible, the owner has not been approached yet.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – applicant required ZBA approval for parking which was granted contingent on Planning Board going through as lead agency and doing SEQR review. Jim Galvin will review SEQR. As SEQR is reviewed Board is asked to comment as needed. When we don’t hear any comments or questions we assume you are saying there is no impact on that issue.
Jim Galvin – reviews SEQR.
Sam Giangreco – asks APD if there is a way to address any type of alternate side parking or if it will create more problems.
Tom Weed – there is no benefit with year round alternate side parking. People would have to park blocks away to get to the church. Recommends to create small area in rear as parking while in construction and cover with stone. Anything would help.
Rev. Mack – it’s a long driveway that would probably accommodate about 6 cars. Biggest problem would be turn around but we could put gravel in there.
Jim Galvin – continues review of SEQR.
Chair – asks if any questions on SEQR.
Nancy Hussey – states Planning Board needs to agree to take lead role.
Chair asks for motion on lead role. Motion to accept made by John Breanick, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for motion on SEQR. Motion for negative declaration made by John Breanick, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Laurie Michelman – next we’ll move on to site plan. I would propose in considering site plan resolution we add in the requirement of the addition of 12 off street parking spaces.
John Rogalski – has measured map and should be room for at least 12 cars.
Laurie Michelman – do we want this to be gravel as temporary measure – all other applicants are asked to pave
John Breanick – thinks gravel would be o.k. due to possible future expansion as land becomes available.
Laurie Michelman – asks for motion for site plan resolution to include 12 spaces.
John Breanick – wonders if requiring 12 is too restrictive. Without having a scale I’d hate to see it come back if there is only 8 or 10.
John Rogalski – I did scale it out and there’s sufficient space.
John Breanick – if he feels it’s appropriate I just don’t want it to have to come back lacking one or two.
Chair - if unable to do 12 come back to DRC for minor change, it shouldn’t be a problem. Asks for motion to accept site plan with addition of 12 parking spaces. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 5: Request for Rezoning at 136 Standart Ave and 120 N. Lewis St. from R1 Residential to C3 Commercial
Chair invites owner or representative to speak.
Guy Hart, Jr. representing applicant – here to apply for zone change from R1 to C3 on the 2 parcels mentioned. Application is for change of zone on this portion of Florence Potter’s property (referring to map) this is what we have in the contract. We don’t have the home or any property bordering Lewis St. in the contract – we don’t control that. Will be asking for subdivision of land and ask for zoning change on portion of land that does not run from Lewis St. It only runs from the lower property line. The parcel will run from the subdivision boundary of the site up to the Flummerfelt’s property. We are proposing the zoning change with conditions which we are laying out on the sketch plan including a 60-foot buffer around the entire property contiguous
to all neighbor properties and offer a conveyance of 60 feet of property to all property owners along Catlin St. that boarder the property.
Laurie Michelman – is that in addition to the buffer or that will be the 60 foot buffer
Guy Hart – no that would be the buffer then we would go the usual side yard set backs from there if there are any. Not 120 foot buffer, just a 60 foot buffer however if you see the sketch plan we are working from now we would agree to something that would be very closely related to what you’re looking at so would know that what’s outside that buffer which is currently green space would stay that way and we would agree to leave that green space as it is right now or we would change it in accordance with the Board’s wishes. Further we are going to be proposing walkways along, into the buffered areas along the Lewis St. side. However this sketch plan shows a walk way going into the buffered areas of Catlin St. side and that is an error, we are not going to have pedestrian walkways of
any kind – it wouldn’t be a concrete, paved or otherwise walkway it would be more of a foot trail for pedestrians to use during spring, summer and fall months and during the winter months it wouldn’t be cleared so to be utilized for cross country skiing, etc. whatever they would like to do there. Proposed uses are restaurants, banks, super market, possible mixed retail portion with electronic store use, beauty/barber shop or midsize retail use such as pet supply, craft store or electronics and a possible other use would be along the lines of potentially a book store along the lines of a Barnes & Noble or a Borders as for example. Principles utilized in looking at this property were that the location is unique in the Auburn market, is unique for an upstate market in that it is favorable for certain principles such as walkability and connectivity (?). We looked at it as a location which would be favorable for providing pedestrians within a
roughly 10 minute walk of the location which numbers about 4200 people – an ability to walk to the sight, utilize the retail activities on the site. We included gazebos on site in 2 locations on this site plan although one of the gazebos was erroneously located and one would be near what is seen as the detention area the other would be located here (points out on map). On this northern boundary of the site we have we put this property on contractor tax map parcel #12 this would probably be location for 2nd gazebo as it has a large swath of land that could be utilized for community events and there would be enough space for pedestrians as well. For individuals to stands around whereas we thought one location here would be useful however 2 didn’t make a lot of sense to us. Again that is something we would be willing to put in as a stipulation for zone change. Along with much more extensive green area and outdoor seating areas, we have outdoor
seating area located along northerly portion of the site near the Lewis & Standart Ave sides, we’re proposing 4 outdoor seating area tables near the gazebo. Right off those tables will be a walking area that would go into what is the wooded, no build buffer zone and would loop in behind the super-market and then actually what we would do probably provide another area for people to cross here between this building here. Built more angular construction rather than a strip center that would be seen in a standard development to provide alcove areas where there could be shade trees and outdoor seating for people to utilize along all portions of the site. Would agree to a more stipulated detail wherein that would be another condition to zone change. Another principal that we thought this site was favorable toward was that locating a commercial retail site at this location would be favorable for current mixed housing environment that exists. Again
looking at the packets I handed out there is 2 spoke wheeled looking polygonal shots on the map on 1st page, this shows the nearest other potential retail location up Grant Ave corridor about 7/10 mile from current site. What we did was a 10 min. walk time map from the center point of that location, it’s about ½ mile, and the demographics that go right behind the map w/the 2 polygons on it there’s a 2 page demographic study that shows that within a 10 minute walk of that location there are 139 residents. Our feeling is that development on that location would definitely greater contribute to the already aggravated sprawl conditions and high traffic problems that exist along the Grant Ave corridor and therefore we consider that site to be inviable for new development. When we did the same study, 10 minutes for the average person – reasonable walk time, from the proposed site we found the population to be, according to the demographics,
4200 people in 2007’s projections, 1n 1990 it was 4600. As you can the dispersing population has decreased the number of populous in that area. We also found that the employment figures were fairly high and that there were several thousand employees that work within a 10 minute walk of the area. We found that the demographic included middle class single-family dwellings as well as multifamily housing in the form of the apartment buildings along Schwartz Dr. and we considered this site to be favorable for a hybrid new organism approach to development. Unusual for a market in upstate NY to have a property that’s favorable for the type of development this is and I think the demographics speak for themselves. Further, referring to the sketch plan, along the northerly boundary of the site you’ll see there’s a detention area, that size is the maximum size that it will be, it may be smaller and a different shape. The significant
comments to add are that per state law it will no further aggravate the current drainage conditions that exist relative to run off from the site and in fact the plan is for it to mitigate the drainage issues so the neighbors along the northerly boundary and the north westerly boundary along Standart Ave and Lewis St. will both have current run off problems coming from this site mitigated.
Chair - Invites members of the public to speak but asks them to keep comments to a minimum time.
Davis Smith – Catlin St. – as I see the purpose of zoning it is to provide separation between residential, commercial and industrial aspects of the community. As a matter of fact when looking at the residential zoning further separation is created between densely populated such as apartment houses all the way to R1 zoning, which is what this land currently is, which is for single family dwellings with even certain distances between houses. It’s very highly protected in the 1992 Auburn zoning ordinance. Zoning ordinance created plan where people could predict where they can live in a quiet neighborhood. Any kind of spot rezoning tinkers with that plan in very negative ways. You can change Auburn from a place where it’s comfortable to live into a place that’s convenient to
shop and I don’t know that you’ve done the community a good service. The idea of having development here & there creates a nasty precedent. I have read in the paper that this is the last best commercial development site in Auburn. First off it’s not commercial, it’s R1 so there is a problem. Secondly is the precedent; were this property to be rezoned, where would be the next last best property come from and what neighborhood would they be after then. Mr. Galvin gave me my closing remark when he said there are no threatened or endangered species in Auburn, I believe people living in R1 communities could very well be that threatened species.
Lori Dacy – Standart Ave for 30 years – I feel qualified to speak of changes that have occurred in this neighborhood through the year. The foremost issued is traffic; through the years we have seen a tremendous build up of services on Grant Ave. However, with all that has taken place in this area one issue has remain unresolved and that has been the problem of increased traffic and the congestion that occurs with this increase. After many year we are now hopefully going to see relief with the advent of the connector rd. Nine years ago when the neighborhood faced a similar proposal, one of our major concerns was safety and increased traffic. Safety of our neighborhood children as they walk to school and the increased flow of traffic that would have been generated. Nine years
later these issues still remain a big concern. The only difference all these years later is that Grant Ave busier than ever and traffic has increased considerably. Regarding Mr. Bouck’s statement in the paper, and I quote; “When completed the traffic flow pattern will have the potential of actually alleviating some of the congestion in the Grant Ave area”. This is an interesting statement since to my knowledge there has not been an independent traffic study to date. It is my understanding that included in the plans for this market center is a new road that would be an egress onto Standart Ave opposite the entrance to Standart Woods. How does one justify adding on more traffic to an already heavily burdened area? On one hand we are building a connector rd. to alleviate some of this burden and then on the other hand we have before you a proposal that will only generate an increase to the traffic problems that already exist. In reference
to Mr. Bouck’s letter to the editor regarding misconceptions regarding this center he states, and I quote; “This location is the last and only reasonable commercial location in the community”. Nowhere in his letter does he state that they are seeking to rezone our residential property to commercial property for the sake of this development. Therein is the heart of our opposition. Mr. Bouck, in reference to your letter, we are not negative voices that feel Auburn is a dead community. On the contrary we are positive voices speaking out in defense of our neighborhoods and the right as homeowners to maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods.
Melissa Brown – Henry Dr. – I have a great history on Lewis St., I practically grew up there; I met my husband and lived there. I hear all the zoning and residential, I was there when P & C wanted to come in. Some of the things I haven’t heard said yet are the families that live there, and the kids that play there and the wildlife there. Kids today don’t really have a special place to go. I see my niece and nephews, my kids, the neighborhood kids – this is 30 some families – playing in the streets and knowing that everyone is looking out for everyone else. These people are going to lose that. These kids aren’t going to have a safe neighborhood anymore; they’re going to have traffic. You talk about the green areas and the gazebos and the
community events. Think of what we have in this town already that is not utilized. We have Owasco Park, the Y-field, Pomeroy Park. These are all resources we have in the City that are so underutilized and now you want to come in a create something that sounds great – I don’t hear any “Yes Borders is coming in” or “Yes this store is coming in” – I hear that they’re all proposed and I think this weighs heavily on the minds of these families because there is nothing written in stone. Yet you want to change their lives, and residence to this commercial place where you’re going to have walls, noise – you talk about the detention place and I think what an unsafe place for the families that live around there. And the water there, I heard one comment it’s supposed to evaporate, there’s no place for it to go so it’s going to be sitting there, and that’s another unsafe place for
these kids to be around. I think, if you look at the west end of town, how underutilized that end of town is. Your talking about the Bass Pro Shop coming in and how many people it will bring into town – that’s at the complete opposite end of town and if you’re coming in just for that you’d think you’d want that part of town more utilized. It’s greatly underutilized – it seems to be so much opportunity for growth and maybe walking distance to malls down there. I can’t picture in my mind anyone walking up Grant Ave to any of the stores with traffic the way it is – I picture them cutting through the yards of these families and down our streets where our children play to get to these places and it just doesn’t seem right for these families.
Joanne Lepak – Standart Ave – asks to be shown gazebo detention area. Guy Hart points out on map. There is no buffer between my back yard and the detention pond. There is nothing protecting us from this hole that will be holding a huge volume of water at times.
Laurie Michelman – you’re saying because it goes right thru the buffer
Joanne Lepak – yes. The gazebos that are proposed, the out door seating areas for community events, the walk ways into wooded buffer zones, where do they go to – our back yards? Are there fences? Zoning is supposed to protect our private residences. I don’t see any separation between these commercial community areas he’s proposing and our back yards which are our private areas. I would like to ask you what exactly is planned there. It’s not very clear.
Guy Hart – relative to issues such as the location of the detention pond, fencing along the perimeter & the nature of the walkways or if the Board would want any of them eliminated we would be willing to defer in the planning phase or previous to the zone change we would agree to define those parameters in accordance with your requests. In answer to her question, we defer to the Board and if the Board defers to her then we defer to her. Meaning to say whatever your request is relative to those issues we’re amenable.
Joanne Lepak – there are children in area, a pond, swamp, any unprotected area like that is an attraction to children and there is wildlife out there. I don’t want to get up some morning and find somebody in the pond hurt, or God forbid, drowned. Who’s going to police that area? He also talked about walkability and I do have concerns about the connection to Schwartz Dr. It’s a horrible curve there now and there are many accidents coming out of there on the curve itself and on the Murray St. corner. I don’t understand where the so called help with our traffic issue will benefit us. I think it’s going to be worse. And if you are increasing the walkability to this plaza there are going to be more pedestrians trying to cross those intersections and I
worry about their safety.
Brian Noga – N. Lewis St. – there are quite a few concerns with this - if no one knows – the City does have a noise ordinance and we would be up against that with traffic in and out, tractor trailers, traffic lights, horns, etc. all night long right in our back yards. Also, with the water problem we have in the back yards on Lewis St. if that’s left sitting around to build up it will attract mosquitoes creating a possibility for West Nile Virus. It’s a lot of things to consider.
Laurie Michelman – can you explain what the water problem is.
Brian Noga – the water does not drain. I cannot ever mow my lawn until the middle of June. And that is all the way back into the woods. This would be right on my property and I don’t think it’s right. The people on Lewis St., Standart Ave and Catlin have worked all there lives to build their properties up and to make it look nice and it’s a beautiful neighborhood and I hope we can keep it that way as a residential neighborhood, not a commercial one.
Ann Clapper – rents on Grant Ave – I have reasons why the rezoning should be passed. 1 – a lot of kids go back there and have beer parties and there all kinds of beer cans back there. It would bring in jobs, it would bring in tax revenue, it would clean the area up, it would send the larger animals out into farther country where they belong, there was a deer killed down by Fox a couple weeks ago and it was just punks. A park like buffer zone would give the neighborhood a place to walk and exercise. They could put a pine tree buffer zone up to help deter light and noise. It would increase property values of neighbors by having the area cleaned up.
Laurie Michelman – everyone will have an opportunity to be heard whether you’re for or against this. I’d ask that you’d be quiet and allow everyone to speak.
Ann Clapper – it would help keep property taxes down by having a tax revenue coming in from this area. The neighbors could help volunteer keeping the buffer zone cleaned up and give them a place to use or play in the woods, etc. at their own discretion.
Mike Szozda – Grant Ave – asks Guy Hart about a proposed traffic light on Grant Ave? (required by DOT) I’ve lived in the neighborhood a number of years – if there’s a traffic light there and a proposed light here – what do you propose to have all the traffic do between the lights – on anyone day traffic is backed up to here. I’m concerned about the traffic problem here. I know what it’s like to get in and out of my driveway everyday. It takes 15 minutes to get in – many times I opt to go around the block, as I can’t pull out left to go up the street. If they’re going to have a traffic light there I believe it’ll be even more impossible as you’re going to be having traffic coming in and out and unfortunately for
me I won’t be able to get in or out. Also, I believe that in the winter time the hill is very difficult to get up – I don’t see how, if there’s a light there, you’ll have people stopping and going and getting stuck. It’ll be more of a hazard in an area already prone to accidents, you’re increasing traffic. You’re going into a residential area – there’s no buffer zone on my side – we always have to deal with the traffic and that’s something we accept but increasing traffic I don’t think will benefit us.
Helen Brown – N. Lewis St. for 40 years – I want to respond with a letter I wrote regarding Ms. Clapper’s letter to the editor a couple weeks ago that hasn’t appeared in the paper yet. I think it will say some things that other people have said but I do want to respond to it. She wrote, quote “it sounds airy with green grass area” and “it sounds open and friendly”. That’s exactly what we have now in our residential area. It’s requested to be zoned commercial, which will take that away. This neighborhood has existed in a relaxed atmosphere, which is the way any family neighborhood should exist. This development would not “fit nicely in the neighborhood”. She mentioned outdoor design, green court yard
areas. This would no doubt encourage people to enjoy the neighborhood, but why in the world would we want other people in our neighborhood sitting around. I sit in my backyard because I enjoy the privacy not because I want someone looking over a fence or along a walkway staring at my back yard and my family, and a pool. Why wouldn’t they want to sit in their own neighborhoods anyway? Why would they want to come to a parking lot that has an excess of 600 parking places? Would they be walking across this to get to the walk around area that will go behind my back yard again? Again, Missy said something about Hoopes Park, Casey Park, Owasco Lake; all those places are public areas for people to enjoy. The gazebos we have in Auburn, we have one right downtown, let’s revitalize that spot, we can do community events right here in downtown. We’ve been told there will be various desirable businesses housed in the center, examples were Red
Lobster, Borders, TGIF, I’ve heard several, but there’s nothing definite about any of those places coming in here and it’s like dangling a carrot in front of the community and saying “Look what we can get you” but that doesn’t mean they’re coming. When we first spoke with Mr. Hart he told us that Auburn has more than enough, if not too many, parks for a city this size. Now he wants to present another park. His company also works very closely with the development of Kinney Drug Co. and he brags about 40 developments within the last several years and said, as the first meeting I went to, that Auburn could use 5 more drug stores. We have 12. 5 more would be 17. There are only 26,000 people in Auburn, there’s no way we can support every drug store. There are other neighborhoods where previous malls have been built, Seminary, Genesee, Grant, Owasco – all those were residential neighborhoods before the
malls and these malls caused those neighborhoods to deteriorate and you can look around, Nelson, Seminary, Owasco, Bradford – any of those little streets around there, they don’t have family neighborhoods like they used to. I apologize for the length of this but Miss Clapper lives on Grant Ave in one of the houses that will be taken out so she won’t be there to share her back yard with the people who want to hang out and walk around the green area. I really would appreciate your thinking about this very seriously and consider the 38, if not more families, that will be affected by this change.
Bill Catto – District 11 legislator – I’m going to take more than 2 minutes – I have met on three different occasions with groups and I’m sure if the number of people I would be speaking for would greatly exceed 2 minutes per person. I think the Planning Board here is faced with major decision we feel it’s very important. We know the Planning Board does not decide on the zoning change, that is really the City Council’s decision but it is your recommendation and we value that recommendation very highly and we know you will act in the best interest of the City of Auburn and not in the best interest of the developers or really a specific neighborhood concern and that is your charge and we accept that. The neighbors I’ve met with are not against development for
Auburn, they are Auburnians who have spent most of their lives here. They are very pro-development and pro-Auburn and I think they would do anything to find a proper and legitimate growth area for the city of Auburn. They know that change is needed and they are willing to accept change. But in this particular case I would like to point out some of the concerns that I have. First of all I spent the last 20 years as the Commissioner of Health and Human Services and most of you know me from that role. But I don’t know if you also realize that I have 3 engineering degrees, I have a bachelor’s and master’s of civil engineering from Cornell, I have a master’s of environmental engineering from RPI, I was 7 years as the City Engineer, I have been a licensed professional engineer since 1965 and I’ve worked for developers as an engineer so I want to say that I think my analysis has some professional basis rather than just plain
commentary. With regard to the environmental impact in the zoning, one of the major concerns that we have is, once you change the zoning you then follow only the rules that are in the zoning for C3. The developer, not saying he would, but he could put anything in here that would meet the C3 requirements. There’s no specific that this plan is adopted. This is a major concern, that should not be allowed that you just rezone without specifics. And I’m reiterating some of the things people have said here. If you want to change you should then go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance, and the variance would then allow only the things in here that were specific on the plan in greater detail. We have, what did they do when they zoned this? When the people did the zoning, look at what they did. This is C3 on Grant Ave, and probably rightly so, it’s commercial development and anything he wants to do in this
area is fine. Legally he’s entitled to do anything within the C3. But you know why they put this line in here for R1? Because from here all the way around are single residential homes. When they drew this particular line, they drew that line to protect the R1 residential are, that’s why they drew it there. And now what the proposal is is to take it out and make it all commercial. We would ask that the R1 zone and the integrity of the neighborhood stay. And the original people that designed it had a purpose and that purpose is still valid and there is plenty of room for development in other parts. We have to realize this is C3 and this is R1 – this isn’t C3 – R2, R3 – this is R1 – this is basically the highest use for individual families and these people, they bought these homes, they’ve lived here for a long time, they realize this is an R1 zone and it’s a single-family residential place and now
they’re going to learn that maybe that’s not going to be true, maybe with a 60 foot buffer – and by the way this room is 48 feet long – another 12 feet and you’ve got trucks, vehicles coming in here day and night and it they say they aren’t coming in you can’t really stop them as it’s not really against the law as they’re allowed in C3 zone to come in there. No place on Grant Ave, they have certainly prime industrial property, no place do they have a location where there is a commercial zone with a residence on 3 sides. This is not spot zoning, this is not I’m going to take one property and make the next one commercial because this adjacent property is commercial, this is coming in and taking a commercial zone having residential on 3 sides – there is no other place on Grant Ave like this and it’s 3 times as bad as just zoning the property next door. The slope of the land really here is a
difficult site. I’m sure the developers try to really work on this and do the very best job they could but between Catlin and Murray St. there is a difference of about 90 feet. Now 90 feet is pretty high – that’s about a 9 story building – that’s high. If you come in here – I don’t know where they’re going to cut and fill, try to level or slope? That’s a substantial decision and just to show this as all being level is ridiculous – you should never allow that. The other thing is, if you’re here – let’s say they graded the high spots and filled in the low spots – if you’re on Catlin St. you’re looking over at roof tops and the like. When you have environmental impact statement – by the way they’re not required to do a type I project – this is just a short form project – but that doesn’t mean that the environmental impacts that occur
should not be addressed. And if you were to have an impact statement and you were to value it as you would see, these people would be looking at roofs, lights and parking lots. Quite frankly in an R1 residential neighborhood, it shouldn’t be rezoned to have these residents looking at roof tops and lights. That’s a mistake and an adverse aesthetic impact. You get a lot of enjoyment of your house by being able to look out in the yard or adjacent yards and so forth and that would be disastrous. These places may be looking up and having an establishment substantially higher than them. But it’s untold because they don’t have a grading plan. The drainage, you start getting 80 feet difference here you’re going to have a lot of water running over those yards. I think they need drainage plans and not just say rezone and take this as gospel. You also have the traffic, I don’t think there’s any doubt that if
you have 600 cars you’re going to have increased traffic. A lot of times on Grant Ave the traffic comes substantially up the street – they allowed a left had turn from Dunkin’ Donuts – I don’t understand how they could’ve allowed that. That’s 100 feet from the intersection. I don’t know if DOT would even give them a light, they might, but before you get involved in all this, what we really have to do, traffic is a major consideration, maybe the main consideration, you’re going to need independent traffic studies. Not the developer saying one thing and the people saying something else, you need an independent party and really they should come up with a traffic study and see what would happen. I think you’ve got noise and odor too, which I’ve alluded to, which they don’t have now and they wouldn’t have, as this is an R1 zone adjacent. There would be noise and odors that
would be entirely different if this were a C3. I have this for your group – these are the type I environmental impacts – you don’t have to fill this out but nonetheless the items are in there and each of these items I’ve spoken about are in there and they say impact on growth and character of neighborhood and that’s what the people are really upset about that I’ve talked to. Pages 19-21..
Laurie Michelman – we do have that in our packet – we should already have similar forms in our packets already
Bill Catto – Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community. And this is what the people are saying, it definitely will and that’s the reason they oppose the development as proposed. I also want to comment, not only is there a use change but there is an intensity in growth and character. Mr. Galvin talked about intensity of development, this is intensely developed. With a C3 development you can have professional office building, veterinary center, you can have things in there that would not take 600 cars, would not be open 24 hours a day, you would not have this kind of intense development. The commercial development that you have when you build stores is as intense a C3 use as you could have. There are some industrial uses that would be less inclusive
than an intense C3. I think the intensity in which they tried to fit this thing together is very profitable but its intensity changes the character of the neighborhood. We said before that you have some major recommendations and based upon the things that I’ve said and the other people have said, we would like to have you, ask you, what’s the best thing for Auburn, so that people in R1 zones know that their R1 zones are going to be protected somehow and not allow a zone change that would open it up to substantial changes. We think this is the best thing for Auburn and we ask for your consideration of these points and hope that you would give a recommendation to Council that this not be accepted. Thank you.
Ed Rizzo – Kenwood Rd. - has in-laws that live on Catlin St. – I feel this project would greatly alter the character of the neighborhood. If you’ve walked the lane you’ll see that Catlin St. is much higher than where this proposed project lies. Therefore they will, as Mr. Catto says, be looking at rooftops. Any fence put along that side will be pretty much useless being as high as the street is – they would just see over any fence. Also I’d like to bring up the issue of noise, you’re going to have tractor-trailers pulling in and out and idling, so you’ll also be smelling fumes, there will be generators on the buildings making noise. Also, illumination – there’s going to be a lot of lighting. I was joking with my father-in-law that we’ll be able to sit on his deck and read the paper at night. That’s the kind of lights there will be – it’ll be like Yankee Stadium. Also, I heard about 120 jobs being created. If you’re taking jobs from one grocery store and moving them here, I
don’t see any job creation, you’re just moving them from one area to another. And, of these 120 jobs most of them are low paying, retail jobs, I don’t see that much of a benefit for it. I’m all for malls coming to town but not here. Let’s give the connector road a chance, let’s not increase traffic on Standart Ave, which we’re trying to alleviate. Let’s do this in another area, not at the expense of the neighbors who live here and vote here. I don’t feel we should allow this project.
Grace LaDouce – for quite a while there’s been talk of revitalizing 5 points, which is only a couple blocks away from where this mall is proposed, and that area could certainly not support 2 commercial developments. Auburn should just stick to one thing at a time.
Frank Shanahan – Catlin St. for 16 years – peaceful residence, nice and quiet, most of us people here we don’t mind development. But, did you ever think about the space behind Ames, nice little place there you could put some buildings there for malls. Another place, how about out across from Pioneer Restaurant on E. Genesee St., nice big field. You can put a nice mall there, bank, people from Skaneateles can come in, do their shopping, people on the east end of town won’t have to go through all the traffic on Grant Ave. And now you’re saying put this mall here with this little foot path going around it – take a look around – most American people are lazy – they don’t walk, they drive, that’s not to much of an incentive there.
Bob Hunter – Gaylord St. – on City Council but I am here representing myself only. Congratulates the Harts on the 2 Kinney Drugs that have been opened in Auburn and hope to see more work from them. Maybe he and Mr. Bouck can get together and do some residential building in the City. As far as this particular project is concerned, I believe Charlie Flannigan and Dave Smith and some others were at the Council meeting a few weeks ago and they mentioned some numbers but I was doing some numbers here tonight. There are about 70 residences on Catlin, Lewis and Standart considering both sides of the street. That comes up to about 3 million dollars in assessment and that’s a considerable amount of money to take into consideration when brought to Council. Although the
Planning Board does have the authority to turn this project down it will somehow get to Council ..
Laurie Michelman – we’ll make a recommendation
Bob Hunter – if you don’t recommend though it gets to Council
Nancy Hussey – it still goes to Council. Council can ignore Planning Boards recommendation or act on it.
Bob Hunter – and with that said you may have to get your troops out again for another meeting as was recommended a few weeks ago to get to this one. As far as this residential/commercial thing is concerned, I’m glad Bill Catto gave that explanation as I certainly couldn’t of. I just don’t think it’s a good mix, I’ve never thought it was a good mix, I didn’t think 9 years ago it was a good thing to put in there because of the R1 situation and all the residents that live there. Also, some people want to argue about ”not in my back yard” but when you mention this to someone else or someone else asks why I’m not supporting this project I ask them if they would want this project in their back yard and they say “No, I don’t want that in my
back yard” but there’s more to it than just the back yard issued as some of the other speakers alluded to as far as the connector road is concerned. We don’t even have the connector road put in yet and this is supposed to alleviate traffic and here we are generating more traffic, not only on Grant Ave but apparently on Lewis and Catlin and not decreasing it on Standart Ave but increasing it. That was the main reason I personally voted for bonding for the connector road, I’d like to see the connector road go in and I don’t want to see this particular plaza go in even though I’m pleased with the work that the Harts have done here in the City. When it comes to Council, I will be voting against this, I’m sorry about that gentleman, but that’s the way I feel. I’ve known a number of people in that area for a long time and I sympathize with them. I am not anti-development by any stretch of the imagination.
That may be a problem with some of the Councilors as they the tax dollars, they see the sales tax dollars, etc. You don’t have to pitch to me anymore but you may have to get on 3 of the other ones. Thank you.
Julia Green – Catlin St. for 13 years – I saw the sign from Bouck on Grant Ave and it’s advertised commercial when it’s really zoned residential and I wonder how they can even do that
Laurie Michelman – the sign is on the commercial part, the front part of the property is zoned commercial. I don’t know if there is another sign, I don’t recall seeing one on the residential part. It’s only on the commercial parcel on the front.
Julia Green – when he tries to sell it he’s including the residential part too, trying to sell that piece of property, he’s adding onto it?
- he can’t sell that
Julia Green – but that’s the land in question though, the residential part
- (answer inaudible)
Laurie Michelman – just the part you see on the map from the buffered area on the green outline in the property we’re discussing tonight and that combines the C3 zone in the front and the R1 in the rear.
Charmain Anderson – Standart Ave – bought the property there a couple years ago because we enjoy the woods in the back, it was quieter than where we lived before and we can enjoy sitting out in the evening and seeing the stars and the wildlife and the birds. I would feel forced to sell because I do not want a development behind my home. If anyone would want to buy that home, I doubt it. I feel that some of the homes on Grant Ave that are willing to sell out for this development, if I had a house there too, I would want to get rid of it myself. Sometimes I feel they hang onto it for the value to get it sold – someone will buy it, they’ll get their money for the development. I enjoy it where I am now and hope to stay there.
Chair – closes public hearing and asks Board for comments.
John Breanick – wants to know the height of any proposed buildings
Guy Hart – nothing over 30 feet to top of largest building
John Breanick – other projects you’ve designed in the past have had mitigations of lighting going onto other properties. Do you have any sort of idea where the lighting will be on the plaza here? How will it affect surrounding areas?
Guy Hart, Jr. – not at this time, we’ll submit a lighting plan at a later date.
John Breanick – can you tell me what type of landscaping you’ll be doing in the upper areas?
Guy Hart, Jr. – the buffer area at this stage, it looks like, we will leave the buffer areas completely alone with the exception, for example, of let’s say a Catlin St. property owner asked us to push dirt onto the buffer area for personal use, as long as planning didn’t have a problem with it and we had the excess fill, we’d be glad to do it because it would enable us not to have to truck it off-site frankly but most likely, no, we would leave it all as it is and then designate it, if a conveyance doesn’t occur to the neighbor we would do whatever to designate that property forever wild or however the Planning Board would recommend it.
John Breanick – of the trees and stuff you have on your design on the 3 sides, approximately what height would say most of that is?
Guy Hart – one thing I’d like to say is this is a conceptual site plan. Nothing on it is cast in stone. This conceptual site plan that you see here has a buffer zone put in it with a lot of green area, we show a lot of trees in it. Areas that don’t currently have a lot of trees, we’ll put more in. It’s something we’ll sit down with staff to go over and come up with a good landscape plan that staff and planning will like when we get back to that stage. Things like lighting plans and that, of course we’ll have to do. As far as the retention area here is concerned, we put this here, I assume we’ll move it over to this area here, but we wanted to get this plan to you. We’re putting it in here to give you an idea of size, this is the
approximately the size of what we will need. This will, by the way, pretty much alleviate up to 100 year flood, all of the waters that are coming down and going into this area here now that are affecting the homes on Standart and Lewis. When we re-contour the property everything is going into the pond. A retention pond is exactly that, it’s retention, there’s a pipe coming from the retention pond that will flow down to the natural drainage into the storm system. That pipe is only so large, this thing fills up when there’s a really heavy rain, within a few hours after it drops back down and you have a green area. We have several of these around that we built, that are all green areas, we tend to mow most of them, sometimes we have big rock around here to keep kids from getting down in there but they are rarely ever wet for any length of time.
Nicki Wright – how deep can that ever be?
Guy Hart – I suspect around 7 or 8 feet but I doubt you’ll see that much water in it.
Laurie Michelman – is that something you fence in the past?
Guy Hart – we have not fenced it in the past as we haven’t had one deep enough that we’ve needed to but if staff requires it of course we will.
Laurie Michelman – I think the zoning will probably require it if it will be at that depth. The City Ordinance will require it?
- it does for pools
Nancy Hussey – our zoning ordinance is silent on that.
John Breanick – the reason I asked is I’ve driven along that area & it seems to me that there are some fairly mature trees in this area in the buffer zone.
Guy Hart – our intention is to leave all the trees there. In areas that are light on trees we will plant more. The objective here is to make this green area all the way around the property pretty dense.
John Breanick – a couple of the neighbors said they were afraid the kids would be cutting through there, will there be anything there to prevent that.
Guy Hart – if a requirement is for a fence we will do that but we think that would be a detriment to the green area but we would be happy to consider it.
Laurie Michelman – would it matter whether the fencing was on the inside or outside of the green space?
Guy Hart – we’ll sit down with staff and go through all of these and we’ll take their recommendations into consideration and come up with a plan that would reflect what they would like to see and what the Planning Board would like to see. Looking at a green area would be a lot nicer than looking at a cedar fence.
Mark DiVietro – has there been any traffic reports done?
Guy Hart – not at this time.
Mark DiVietro – any DOT information?
Guy Hart – we haven’t gone to DOT yet. At this point we wanted to present a conceptual site plan to you. This is basically what we would like to do and get your reaction to it and your recommendation to the Council and when we get to the point when a traffic study would be required we’d be happy to produce one for you. I’m sure there are a lot of things we’ll have to do, lighting plans, etc.
Laurie Michelman – the lay out of the buildings you have is different than what was originally proposed and presented.
Guy Hart – there were comments made to us they felt this was too close over here to the homes here so we moved it.
Laurie Michelman – the large building
Guy Hart – correct. We redid this green area in here with the idea of protecting the homes around here from this.
Laurie Michelman – and just to be clear, what we see here is 6 stand alone buildings as opposed to what was discussed as a strip mall.
Guy Hart – that’s correct.
Nicki Wright – do you have any feel for, the proposed super market that’s the P & C…
Guy Hart – I didn’t say that.
Nicki Wright – all right, then how many new jobs would you see coming in?
Guy Hart – other than the supermarket, I think about 75 – 80 jobs at least, probably more.
Nicki Wright – and this would be to go into the other buildings.
Guy Hart – a book store alone will employ 30 – 40 people, just the book store. A restaurant of any size will probably hire another 30 people, just a good sized restaurant. A bank will probably have at least a ½ dozen employees or more.
John Rogalski – questions the drainage, such a drop in elevation
Guy Hart – states he doesn’t think it’s as high as stated. There is a considerable drop here and our intention is to grade this entire site into drainage basins which will flow into this retention pond and flow from the retention pond into the natural drainage system. In other words, waters that come in here now that come down to settle in these yards here won’t be able to do that, they’ll by pulling the opposite way.
John Rogalski – will the parking area be level
Guy Hart – it’s going to have some pitch to it but it will have catch basins all throughout this picking that water up and that will come into here and go from there off the site. The objective here is to alleviate what is already an existing serious condition and mitigate it as well as pick up what we will be creating as far as hard surface is concerned and that’s the reason for the size of this pond. We have 2 purposes we need to serve here, not just one.
John Breanick – have any soil samples been looked at, not too far from the stone quarry there, I wonder how far down it is till you get to rock.
Guy Hart – we haven’t dug up in this area but I’m not all that concerned with it.
Laurie Michelman – with those buildings the way that they are, particularly the larger super market, will there be deliveries going into the back of the building. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of space there.
Guy Hart – we’re assuming deliveries will be in this area and this area of the building and that the roadways coming to here will be to here and here and back out again.
Laurie Michelman – so you’re not anticipating deliveries behind the building
Guy Hart – no, I would say to you as far where deliveries are going to actually wind up being on all the buildings that will be on our final site plan we will give you and we will make allowance for all of that and show you how we’re going to handle that traffic flow.
Laurie Michelman – are you anticipating that any of these businesses will be operating on a 24 hour basis?
Guy Hart – I doubt that.
Laurie Michelman – and if we were to put a limitation sometime in the future if this were to come that far on the length of hours of operation, would that be something that would inhibit?
Guy Hart – I honestly can’t answer that until speaking with a prospective tenant with regards to that as far as hour limitations go. I’m sure that something can be worked out.
John Rogalski – questions noise, traffic, fumes
Guy Hart – I had something interesting happen to me the other day, a guy pulled up in front of our office with a tractor-trailer, he was in the process of making a delivery and the truck was running and it shut off. I told him the truck had stalled and he said that everything they have, and what most people have, is an automatic shut off after 30 seconds. When they get out of the truck to do something else then the trucks are set up now to shut off. I checked with a few people and it’s a fuel saving feature and most of them are starting to do it now.
John Rogalski – if area is rezoned and you decide to pull out, what happens then?
Guy Hart – would like attorney to address that. That’s been brought up before. If we say we’re going to do a bunch of things and we wind up selling the deal to somebody else are they obligated to do what we say? We think the answer is yes.
Steve Primo – atty – we had a discussion about that tonight and I hadn’t been aware that was a concern and I had some thoughts and I haven’t really looked at the City code to see if these are possibilities but at minimum, and I know this sometimes presents problems for planning staff, I know it has in other jurisdictions, one thing you can always enter into, either in connection with a subdivision or in connection in condition to zone change, and this can apply to any of these things were talking about here, such as maximum square footage, lot coverage, buffer areas, park/recreation areas, is either a restrictive or protective covenant, the other thing would be, and I don’t know if the City code provides for this, we could amend our application to some sort of planned commercial
development or Planning staff, along with the planning commission, could basically detail what they want to see in connection with the zone change for this particular site. I don’t know if that’s an option, I didn’t get a chance to review the City code.
Nancy Hussey – our code does have that.
Steve Primo – these are some of the things, so if you’re talking about what happens down the road, what happens if the Harts sell, what happens if some of these things we’re talking about do not come in fruition, those are the things I think protect the neighbors and the City so that these types of uses, these types of protections, these types of features stay in place. If there’s an intention to change those then obviously you have to come before the Board again and establish the same type of justification for modification you would’ve had to establish for the initial zone change. It’s something we can look into a little bit more.
Laurie Michelman – in other words to clarify with corporation counsel it would almost be like a conditional rezoning.
Nancy Hussey – I don’t know, I haven’t looked into the zoning. The amendment would have to be changed, it would be to a certain extent a conditional zoning.
Steve Lynch – the question is does the City have a mechanism to allow a planned development district. The answer to that is yes and no. The planned development district is primarily in the zoning ordinances as defined under the residential sections primarily for developing residential with some commercial with all the other amenities that typically go into a PDD. It’s a mechanism in which you can create a district that is sort of like a floating zone where it is very specific what can and what cannot be placed in that specific zone. As I said, our PDD allowance is really meant for residential. Can we really do it for commercial, can that be looked at? We’d have to defer to corporation counsel, they’d have to go back and look at that. However, if
that is what’s going to happen and if there’s a mechanism for that, what it would mean is that you’d have to amend your application, you’d have to provide the information for a PDD that applies to those issues that people are talking about and that would be another issue. In that case the PDD would require this Board to act on SEQR at the same time they are acting on the PDD. That’s my understanding of it generally.
Guy Hart - the other thought we had was as far as this property here is concerned, we’re subdividing this out, that’ll have to happen, so we have no objection to doing the subdivision and add the necessary caveats were seeing in here into that subdivision, we can probably handle it that way also. We are not buying all of Mrs. Potter’s property, only this portion
Steve Lynch – I have discussed this with a couple neighbors that called my office, there was some concern about that particular issue. Mrs. Potter’s property does extend, it’s a flag lot, it does come from Lewis it does expand out in the back. If you want to move forward right now the application does include the entire parcel which would bring it off Lewis St. We did say that it’s problematic procedurally how that’s addressed and I’ve discussed briefly with corporation counsel that if this is brought before Council and they decide to rezone this there would have to be some sort of contingency that a subdivision would have to happen so that particular parcel did not get rezoned all the way to Lewis St., that it was cut off.
Guy Hart – our contract specifically excludes this parcel.
Steve Lynch – our process does not readily allow that to happen and we’d have to take a look at how that could happen.
Steve Primo – it would seem to make the most sense, not only for the developers, but for all concerned if we could explore something along the lines of a PDD. I’m hearing some serious SEQR issues mentioned, some of you are aware that there is long form SEQR submitted but I’m hearing questions tonight about the drainage, about the neighborhood character issues and especially about the traffic so if we’re going to dig into those a bit more I imagine those indications are going to come from this Board or else we’re never, in the current scenario with the zone change application, going to get to a recommendation to the City Council. Maybe if we take a step back and explore doing it this way and conduction a SEQR review at this level that may be the way to go, it makes the most
sense then we could lay out with some specificity, rather than in a rough concept form, for the neighbors, here what we’re going to do and then they can voice their concerns what they like or don’t like and we can say with some level of assurance that this is the plan. We have some, for instance, storm water figures, we’ve got a conceptual study done that we’re comfortable enough with that we know the pond is going to be in that location and that’s roughly the going to be the sizing of it, that sort of thing. Just food for thought but that might be the way to go.
John Rogalski – what about the traffic situation on Grant Ave
Guy Hart – as far as having a traffic light at this location, we’re indicating that there will be one here as we assume that is what DOT will require of us. Frankly I’d rather them put there own traffic light up. But we’re only assuming they’re going to ask that.
John Breanick – are you opted into these 6 building designs or will there be a fluctuation of that.
Guy Hart – right now we are assuming there will be 6 in the approximate location that you see.
John Breanick – will the larger anchor being in the center there.
Guy Hart – that’s correct
John Rogalski – does APD have any feelings about this?
Tom Weed – inaudible
John Breanick – question for corporation counsel – Mr. Catto spoke about zoning with specifics and details, is that something in the works that we’d be able to implement at a board?
Steve Lynch – I think what Bill is saying is that request for rezoning does not particularly allow specific criteria to be included in the rezone, whereas, he was suggesting, if they went for a variance and received a variance the ZBA puts very specific criteria on what can and can’t be done that runs with the land. However, as you probably know, this Board cannot make them go for a zoning variance, they can suggest it to them and I think we did very early on even discuss that but it’s there prerogative whether they want to apply for a rezoning.
John Breanick – so who’s determination is it that Planning Board became lead agency on this, the applicants?
Steve Lynch – well not mix the terms, the Planning Board is not the lead agency here, Planning Board is not required to do SEQR on this because all your making is a recommendation to Council. As it stands now with the rezoning application, City Council would have to be the body that does SEQR. If you’re asking, not lead agency but who determines that it comes before this body simply by virtue of them submitting an application for rezone you are required to hold a public hearing, review it and make a recommendation to Council, allow it to go to Council. That is the procedure that is outlined in the zoning ordinance.
Guy Hart – I understand that if and when this ever gets rezoned we’re back here with our site plan.
Steve Lynch – if you pursue the development, as I anticipate you would, yes, if this gets rezoned this would have to go thru site plan and that would be a different SEQR and that would be a very site specific SEQR and all these issues would be answered. But Council has to do SEQR for a zoning change.
Guy Hart – the issues that were brought up tonight will be the ones we ultimately have to address.
Steve Lynch – however I really should mention that those issues should be thought about in the process of changing the zoning, not change the zoning and then address those issues when someone comes up with a site plan.
Mark DiVietro – my main concern would obviously be traffic, that’s something that could be done beforehand, like now, with that plan. The rest of it, as far as the characteristic of the neighborhood, that plan could totally change if that’s ever passed to commercial and that plan could be out the door and start with something new.
Guy Hart – not if we agreed to put caveats in there, either in the subdivision or …
Mark DiVietro – but as far as traffic, that can be done now, some kind of traffic study.
John Breanick – back when they were looking at the change for P & C store and AutoZone, I believe Mr. O’Neil did a traffic study? Do you think there’s that much of a change from that time and can you summarize to the best of your recollection what those numbers looked like?
Steve Lynch – I can’t off the top of my head discuss the outcome of the AutoZone traffic study. For anyone who doesn’t know, where the old Cassidy’s was there was a proposed AutoZone and they did a minor traffic study for that area and they did a site plan and it was approved and then the developer decided not to build. I do not have the answer for that but I could look that up and provide it too but I should say that traffic analyses are pretty specific to development proposals and have as much to do with internal circulation and circulation to a specific spot as they do for a general area such as Standart and Grant Ave. So while there might be some information that would be helpful and instructive to look at with regard to AutoZone or anyone else that went in recently on
Grant Ave that did a traffic study really one should be looked at very specifically for this proposal. And with regard to that without having a very specific proposal in front of us to respond to what this board would probably want from a traffic study would be to charge the traffic engineer with trying to define what would be the most intensive development that could happen under the C3 zoning which is likely what you’re seeing here. The type of development that Bill Catto even pointed out earlier, this is likely the most intensive type of development, it’s more intensive than if a Fox auto mall went in. The traffic analysis would have to assume a generic big development like this and draw their assumptions from that. They wouldn’t look specifically at what Mr. Hart is proposing here tonight unless we entered into a PDD or something like that.
Sam Giangreco – all the traffic study ideas and that is all well and good but being from the area and going around the area and doing some extensive looking at the issue over the past few weeks I don’t see how anybody can think that this is not going to be a quagmire. First of all you have an entrance going out across from Standart Woods, o.k., that’s going to be an issue there. You’ve got increased traffic because of what’s going to take place inside this development, obviously. You’ve got, what we’ve just mentioned, the AutoZone property, I don’t know what’s going to happen there yet but I’m sure it’s going to generate some type of activity in the near future that’s also going to create traffic. The stop light coming down the
hill on Grant Ave is an absolute nightmare; I don’t know how anyone could not think that would create a real problem. Concerning the walkabilty traffic, how are you going to walk to it? I don’t see anyone crossing the street there’s so much traffic there now. Regarding the jobs, whether it’s P & C or not, you’re going to relocate some jobs, the people on the high end jobs are going to be the management people, the rest will be minimum wage or a little above. Drainage is a big issue, I don’t like that pond idea whatsoever. I think it’s a danger and a detriment to the area. If they’re proposing a drug store coming in there, I’ve heard some ideas that the other corner might belong to Eckerd now, I don’t know if that’s a fact. But there’s another drug store so you’re going to cause a vacancy in the plaza, if P & C if the supermarket you’re going to cause a
vacancy there. And what about the businesses already there? There’s Pete’s pizza place, Muldoon’s cleaners, Ann’s restaurant, are these places going to be bought out or will they be in competition. Some people’s homes are going to be an issue whether they’re going to sell them or whatever; some people have been there a long time. Regards to people with children and traffic, I can see traffic coming in .. And also, that section of Lewis St. where Mrs. Potter owns, if that is rezoned to commercial what’s to stop them from making and exit to get in & out of there for deliveries. They can say it’s not going to happen but it can. As far as the businesses coming in there, no ones signed on the dotted line with prospective tenants and most of those tenants, like a book store, this community has all it can handle just to support a bookstore at the (Finger Lakes) mall and that barely makes it out there. I’m not against a development but how about looking at another area like downtown
Auburn – everybody’s successful near water and there’s plenty of vacated area that could be looked into. I laud what they did with Kinney Drugs (on Owasco St.), it’s been a great set up. Maybe, just an idea, try looking downtown.
Laurie Michelman – concerning the aesthetics of the buildings – can you comment about that as there’s been talk about how this is something Auburn hasn’t seen before.
Guy Hart – in that it’s not going to be a strip center, we’re talking about putting individual buildings around. As far as the design of the buildings is concerned, we’ve haven’t gotten that far yet. That’s something I think we’ll be talking about in the near future.
Laurie Michelman – and the addition of the walkways and the gazebos is that something that was added in for the use of the buildings or was that really added in more for the residential areas.
Guy Hart – the reason that was added in there is that we’ve seen it in other developments, such as at the discount mall between hear and Rochester, there are a lot of areas of green space with walkways thru and space for seating areas and the thing we’ve noticed when we’ve been there is people use them and that’s what initially gave us the idea. We thought that would go very well here, it’s the type of design you’re beginning to see now.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – there’s a number of options the Board can take a look at this evening. One of the options is to determine that there is enough information at this point to make a determination one way or the other and they can make that determination, that’s at your discretion. I want to reiterate for the Board that you do not have to do SEQR tonight. You can act on a resolution either way to recommend to Council that they adopt the zoning amendment that’s proposed or recommend to Council not to adopt the proposed zoning amendment. Another option for the Board, if you feel that you don’t have enough information to make a decision tonight and you feel it would be productive to have any additional information before making a decision, then you can ask for more information. You should know that brings it further down the road towards definition. The other option that was brought up tonight that we haven’t had an opportunity to explore and I’d have to discuss it with corporation
counsel is the idea of a PDD. There is a provision in the ordinance for one but it is primarily meant for residential development, it’s not specifically meant for commercial development. It doesn’t mean you can’t do it for commercial development but we’d have to take a hard look at the ordinance to see if that mechanism is there. You’ve also heard tonight that there are a lot of site specific questions that came up, we kept pointing to the map asking where things would be, I’d like to reiterate for the Board that what you’re considering here tonight is a zoning change and the recommendation for or against the zoning change for Council’s consideration. Any use that’s allowed in a C3 district can be put in this place. Hart can get a great job offer next week in California and they can be there and the zone will be changed. I have every intention that they’ve gone this far because they plan
on putting in this specific development if the zoning does get changed. In regards with them talking about doing a zoning change with some contingencies, I’m not aware that’s been done before, I don’t know that cannot be done, I’d have to talk to corporation counsel about that. But certainly, we talked about the subdivision of Mrs. Potter’s property, but that would probably, at a minimum be something that we would want to be considered as they have no intention of using that potential egress onto Lewis and we wouldn’t want to see that as well. So you can determine you need more information, determine you have enough information, you can ask that you get more information and staff goes back and discusses the potential for a PDD. That’s really up to the Board. We did ask the applicant to fill out a long form SEQR, the type that’s usually done for a type I action, it’s not required for this
project but we thought it would start to get at the issues the neighbors were bringing up and we’re reading in the papers and that people were discussing with us. That is the type of information that the Council will have to look at when they make their decision. If you go through that and you think there are other things in there that haven’t been discussed, let us know. Without any further comment from the staff that’s basically have to say, what we view as our role is to bring you through this process to try to present the information to you, try to present enough information for you to make a reasoned determination one way or another and make a rational decision as appointed officials. If you need our assistance in making any more decisions let us know.
Laurie Michelman – at this time what I think we’ll do is what we’ve done in the past is to poll the members of the Board. I want your opinions on whether or not you believe we need more information, perhaps in the form of a traffic study at this time, or additional information if you feel necessary or if you feel you can make a recommendation to the Council tonight or if you wish that the applicant, along with the City staff, looked into the PDD. We’ll start with Mr. Giangrego.
Sam Giangreco – my feeling on this is if we have to go do a traffic analysis, if we went that route. I think we should have an independent person or firm of our choosing do it paid for by the developers. But it’s my personal opinion that we propose to the Board that we give a recommendation not to accept the zoning change.
John Breanick – I’d like to recommend that we get more information. When I was previously the City representative on the County Planning Board David Miller came up with different information regarding the amount of paved space in proportion to the square footage of the buildings on the properties. If you look where P & C plaza is, more than not you’ve got more underutilized black top than anything else. I’d hate to see anymore drainage being caused by having an overabundance of parking spots. We have one building here with square footage, the other 5 we don’t, so we don’t know what the square footage of those buildings is going to be so how can we say what the parking requirements are going to be. I’d like to see that looked at with the
County. I’d also liked to see the planned development district, what we have regarding that and see what the interplay would be on something like that. As Sam said, a traffic analysis, we should have something like that not only for Grant Ave but also Standart Ave if they plan on having an access there.
John Rogalski – my recommendation is to, as I think we did get enough information from the Board members and the public, we are sympathetic toward the public, I recommend we postpone this and bring it up again in the future, digest what we’ve heard here and get something together and then make a recommendation about rezoning. This is a critical situation, I’m worried about what could happen if we did rezone it and what would happen if they somehow in the future made a decision to leave. I know legally they may not but… I would recommend that we table it.
Laurie Michelman – what are your thoughts about a traffic study?
John Rogalski – I strongly recommend it.
Laurie Michelman – are there any other items that need to be done if we were to table this action.
John Rogalski – traffic study and drainage problem. That’s quite a drop and what effect it would have on the neighbors, not so much on Lewis St. but on Catlin St.
Nicki Wright – I definitely thing we need a little more information as well as time to digest this information. This is the first I’ve read a lot about this in the paper and the various comments and the different meetings. For me it’s been the first time I’ve really realized the impact it’s had when people come up and talk about their own livelihood. I definitely have concerns about the drainage and the safety of that pond. Also, the vegetation and having to look over a building roof top and anything that can be done about that. The traffic is a major concern, I sympathize with these people, I avoid Grant Ave because there are certain times you definitely don’t want to turn left on Grant. I would also be curious to know about the options of
a PDD and get some more info on that.
Mark DiVietro – again I say traffic is a main concern, definitely traffic studies. Without that I would also say I wouldn't recommend going to Council with the zone change.
Laurie Michelman – I also have major concerns about the traffic issue and would also like to see a traffic study before making any determination. However I ask corporation counsel discuss what our limitations as a Board is and the reason I ask is that the way the zoning ordinance is written if a complete application for rezoning comes before the board a recommendation is to come before Council within 30 days. So I’d ask that corporation counsel discuss that and perhaps discuss permission with the applicant to table the decision tonight.
Nancy Hussey – first of all the procedure prior to any recommendation coming before the Council or any recommendation made by Planning Board is based on a completed application. The code specifically provides that if the Planning Board requires or needs further information in order to give a proper consideration and disposition, meaning a recommendation to Council one way or the other, then that application would be incomplete. The Planning Board does have the option to request the applicant to present more information prior to making that determination to Council. In other words the 30 days to present to Council is not triggered until the Planning Board deems the application complete.
Steve Primo – we would stipulate to waive that anyway. I think I’m hearing that more time is needed to consider this and more information. What I propose perhaps is sort of a timeline, obviously a traffic study would be expensive. It’s not something that always have to be done in conjunction with a development but sometimes has to be done. Before we do that I thought we could explore whether or not a planned development is an option or, if not, some sort of conditional zoning with protective covenants as sort of an alternative, as a mechanism for the applicant presenting their plan with the specifics that everyone wants to see. It would probably have to be a condition of this plan getting any further than this Board on a recommendation. If we can get past
that hurdle then maybe we can talk about traffic study costs, who does it, that sort of thing. I’m asking that we get through these preliminary issues first, obviously if we can’t get over these hurdles then we don’t have a plan to proceed with, and obviously we’re not going to want to do a traffic study for a plan we’re not going to proceed with. But if we’re going to proceed with the plan and we have a mechanism for presenting that plan then the traffic study would be the next step. We just don’t want to put the cart before the horse.
Laurie Michelman – any members of the Board wish to comment? I’m still a little concerned as I’m not sure a PDD would still eliminate the need for a traffic study.
Steve Primo – I’m not saying that it would. Some things have been raised as concerns, one is “show us what this plan consists of”, “where are these things going to be”, because they’re so important to this plan that we’re not going to consider a zone change with boiler plate type changes to a C3 without knowing what kind of restrictions, and where these buffers are going to be and I think the only mechanism for doing that is something a little different such as a PDD or something akin to that such as protective covenants in conjunction with a conditional zone change. So if we can figure out what that mechanism is going to be and we know that’s the way to proceed and we can show you the plan that way then it makes sense to take the next step which is a
traffic study. If we can’t get past that first hurdle there is no sense in going forward.
Laurie Michelman – then the question comes down to time as far as your concerned as that will take even more additional time probably than one additional meeting.
Guy Hart – we understand that. There’s a gentleman here tonight with a plan that was two years in the making.
John Breanick – one thing that came up was talk about the connector road, I know there are some plans being drawn up talking about trying to keep the traffic influx to a minimum. What is the projected date of having utilization to the connector road.
Steve Lynch – late summer of 2004 for completion. Mr. Primo as a clarification – what you’re saying is let us take a look at the possibilities of a conditioned rezone application or a PDD and if those are avenues the City could make available then you would look at developing a site plan that would have the specificity that these folks are looking at, they don’t want it anyway, but they would want to see what you’re going to show, then you would consider getting a traffic study for that particular plan because that’s what you would be proposing. I just want to be clear with the Board as well.
Steve Primo – yes. And there may be a third alternative, but if there is some way of assuring the Board and the residents that what we are showing them is going to be locked in and there isn’t this variability of the usual zone change type restriction. I think that’s what everybody wants to hear in addition to the information regarding the buffers, and that type of thing. I think that’s sort of the only mechanism of doing that and if we can agree that there is a way of doing that then it make sense to do the traffic study then we’re sort of on track as to how we’re going to do this. If we can’t put in on paper that way then I think what I’m hearing is that we have to take a step back and consider what we’re doing here.
Steve Lynch - I think it should be fair to say that if we go down that road and we determine there is some kind of way to do a PDD or some sort of conditioned rezone – the fact that we do go through that exercise does not mean this Board is obligated in any way because we’re doing the extra work. It just means we’re trying to arrive at something that is more specific than what’s now very generic.
Steve Primo – of course.
Sam Giangreco – just a reiteration. Traffic studies are fine, but I don’t think there’s anybody in this room that can dispute the fact that this is going to be a quagmire one way or the other. You’ve got too many places where traffic is coming out and funneling into one small spot and I can’t see how anyone else can’t see that and I wouldn’t want to spend your money or ours getting the same answer from the guy who’s going to say the same thing.
Laurie Michelman – the question for corporation counsel is what would be the vehicle at this point for this Board? Should we make a motion or are we doing it on stipulation with the applicant to table the consideration this evening.
Nancy Hussey – at this point I would turn to the applicant and if the applicant would prefer to be tabled at this point prior to the Board acting or finding out if the Board wanted to act on it based on the stipulation of the applicant.
Steve Primo – we’re prepared to stipulate tonight to waive the 30 day period. I’m also hearing that if we weren’t prepared to do that the Board is willing to take the position, by motion or otherwise, that the application is incomplete, so either way it’s going to happen we’re prepared to stipulate for the purpose of this being tabled and us providing and us providing further information after discussion with planning staff.
Nancy Hussey – my suggestion is that the Board make a motion either to table for more information or to make a recommendation to Council.
Laurie Michelman – is there a motion? Motion to table made by John Rogalski, seconded by John Breanick. All members except Sam Giangreco vote approval. Motion carried.
Steve Lynch – let me clarify what just happened. The Board has determine to table it, they could’ve asked for more information off the bat but it seems like the applicant would like staff to go back and look at the zoning ordinance for a possibility of a PDD or a rezone with conditions and see what those avenues are. The other option could’ve been for the Board to ask for more info tonight and the developer would’ve had to go back to the drawing board. The applicant waived the 30 day requirement and is asking staff to look into those issues. We anticipate this will be brought up again at the next meeting and we’ll try to report what we’ve found out.
Laurie Michelman – one additional item is that under the zoning ordinance every April this Board is supposed to revisit the ordinance and determine whether or not we have any recommendations or any changes that we wish to be made. Due to the late hour I don’t think we want a complete open discussion. does anyone know of any issue that they have thought about or wish to raise at this time.
John Breanick – when speaking about the K & S car wash, when the rezone was done in ’91 or ’92 it wasn’t approved by Council. Was it needed and was it approved.
Nancy Hussey – Yes and yes.
John Breanick – how often do they like to have a new traffic study done.
Steve Lynch – traffic studies that can show you what the traffic in the area is, but what I’m hearing from the Board is there are specific traffic concerns.
Sam Giangreco – has there been a development on the AutoZone corner.
Steve Lynch – there have been rumors but we have no plans. FYI – we do have something in here for a PDD but it’s pretty specific for residential so it’s kind of a stretch to include commercial. I think it’s something that could manage to be done if we want to recommend it and have an ordinance developed.
Laurie Michelman – motion to adjourn. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
