City of Auburn Planning Board
Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Laurie Michelman, Sam Giangreco, John Rogalski, Nicki Wright, Mark DiVietro, John Breanick. Absent: Sandra Craner
Staff: Nancy Hussey, Corporation Counsel; Steve Lynch, OPED Director, Jim Galvin, CD Program Manager, Brian Hicks, Codes
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 2 and 3: Conditional Site Plan Approvals for 45 Columbus Street, 12 Lafayette Place;
John Tardibone, Applicant
Chair - These items were originally viewed and conditionally approved at the 7/02 and 10/02 meetings with public hearings done at that time. We are here to review the applicant’s status with compliance with the required elements of the conditional approval. Does the Board have any questions or comments at this time? Actually let’s have staff explain why we are here tonight.
Steve Lynch – as mentioned this was originally approved as 2 separate site plans, one for the front of the property and one for the rear. The conditions are included in your packets attached to the resolutions. (Reviews conditions on each). This was brought to our attention by Corp. Counsel and Codes, apparently they have worked with Mr. Tardibone and have received some complaints from the neighbors and some of the provisions have not been complied with as far as the parking provisions in the front.
Chair – asks Mr. Tardibone if he has any comments before the Board speaks.
John Tardibone – there is one neighbor on the LaFayette side that continually complains about the pallets. They have been cleaned up – even ‘though it is a commercial zone. Mr. Hicks took pictures today to show it was cleaned. But someone last night dumped tires there and that’s an ongoing thing. We can’t police it all the time. On the Columbus St. side we have one complaint about the way the vehicles are parked. The vehicles are parked where they belong and I’ve complied with everything I should have. Also the complainant thinks we shouldn’t turn tractor-trailers around there but now there is a business there that uses tractor-trailers so I imagine that will be a complaint also – but it is not there all the time. I also thought the review was
for January 3 and this is 10 months later and I thought everything was o.k. as I hadn’t heard from anyone. I feel I’ve done all I was required to.
Chair – asks Codes for any comments.
Brian Hicks – the main thing is the complaints coming in have concerned the pallets and the vehicles parked there. He has worked at cleaning the property. Most of the pallets have been removed, there are a large number of pallets in an area on Columbus St. - I don’t know why.
John Tardibone - The reason there are so many pallets around, is because the business for that part of the building is to re-build old pallets.
Brian Hicks – the community that borders LaFayette Pl. is where the complaints have been coming from.
Sam Giangreco – are the complaints on the front or rear of the property?
Brian Hicks - LaFayette side, there had been some from the Columbus side but they have subsided.
Chair asks if the Board has any other questions. There being none asks if the public has any comments.
Sam Giangreco – asks if the pallet business was there during the last meeting.
John Tardibone - No. It moved in about 3 – 4 months ago.
Sam Giangreco – it’s a separate entity? (Yes) And you have no idea who’s dropping the tires there? (No)
John Tardibone - If you compare pictures from yesterday to today, you can see in the pictures that the tires weren’t there yesterday, but they were there today. It has nothing to do with our operations.
John Breanick – if you look at these pallets you can see they are new, not something that’s been sitting there a while. It has nothing to do with the car business which is what he’s come for site plan approval. I don’t see any violations of the conditions given.
Chair – are there any other concerns besides the pallets?
Steve - Are there any other concerns other than the pallets? Anything concerning vehicle parking or inoperable vehicles?
Brian Hicks – the only other concern was the trash in the area near the pallets. He has been very good about keeping his cars behind the fenced area.
John Tardibone – we have one neighbor who is mad that we won’t let him park in tractor-trailer on the premises. So he complains about us. Some of the things in the picture don’t even belong to me.
Stan Bryant - Van Anden Street – I’ve been down there several times on LaFayette Pl. In the paper it said it was for demolition of vehicles, rebuilding appliances, etc. Is that going to be inside the building or in the parking lot? What’s going to happen when he has the permission to run the business there? There seems to be no restrictions.
Mr. Tardibone - I put up a $6,000 fence.
Stan Bryant – Is it going to be restricted to operating in the business or will it be on the parking lot. Are there any restriction as to what he can use the property for. Will there be an overflow of cars?
Steve Lynch – he already has a conditional approval allowing him to park the vehicles, 90% of which have to be operable, on the Columbus St. side.
Stan Bryant – That’s on Columbus, I’m speaking about LaFayette.
Steve Lynch – there was a fence required and was placed.
Stan Bryant - so the stuff lying in front of the old loading dock doesn’t belong to him (correct).
Steve Lynch – he did not come for a site plan for that portion of the property, he came for site plan for the portion of the property that is now fenced in the rear along LaFayette Pl.
Stan Bryant – then what I am concerned about – whom does that property belong to?
Steve Lynch – asks Mr. Tardibone if that is his property also.
Stan Bryant – on LaFayette place where the loading dock is.
John Tardibone – yes, I own that.
Stan Bryant – what is going to happen if stuff ends up there in different degrees of being repair or ignored?
Steve Lynch – that would be a Code Enforcement issue.
Chair – many of the issues you are concerned with are Codes issues.
John Breanick – that building there used to house Singer, then Snyder-General. That has always been used as warehouse and storage and that is what they are continuing to do. It’s commercial/industrial zoned, I don’t see any issue here. We’re here about the car lot but what we’re talking about is pallets. This is a conforming use for this district. I make the motion that we approve this site plan as presented. I’ve not heard anyone ask APD if there were any problems with the cars, pictures don’t show any great problems and we’ve all looked at the property. We’re here to review the car business not the pallet business.
Chair – any other comments prior to discussing the motion? The motion that was made I recommend we include the terms and conditions that we had in the conditional site plan. Asks Mr. Tardibone is there were any problems with that. (no) We will make 2 separate motions for each property. We’ll do 45 Columbus St. first.
All members vote approval. Motion carried. (No second)
Chair – asks for vote on site plan for LaFayette Pl. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of September 8, 2003
John Breanick – points out there are not enough people to vote at this time, three were absent from the last meeting.
Chair – tables the minutes until the next meeting.
Other Business: Prospect Street Site Plan
Chair – next item is a proposed subdivision of Prospect and Franklin St. Paul Vitale is the applicant. This is only a sketch plan review. Invites the owner or agent to speak.
Daniel Flanders of Port Byron - There are 20 building lots with a projected 21st lot for storm water retention pond to control run off on the site. The initial plan was to have a 2-way road coming in about a couple hundred feet from the intersection of Franklin and Prospect Street thru the parcel and back into Prospect St. with a short cul-de-sac at the end. The development is split between the City of Auburn and the Town of Sennett. We anticipate any homes built will be in the City of Auburn. We will have to sit with the Town of Sennett to discuss the subdivision and potential annexation to the City. I don’t foresee any houses being built in Sennett and certainly not on the line, ½ in & ½ out side the City. We intend to build the roads to the City’s spec’s, sanitary sewers, water mains, storm sewers, etc. and if necessary a storm water detention pond.
Chair – asks for any comments or questions from the Board.
John Breanick – would this be developed like Commerce Dr. off Grant Ave or one that the City would take possession of after being built.
Daniel Flanders – intention would be that everything would be dedicated to the City.
John Breanick – is the 2nd access to Prospect a 2 way street or 1 way only as on the plans?
Daniel Flanders – the roadway further down Prospect would be 2 way. We had originally showed it as 2 way all the way thru. Recommendation because of possible conflict with the intersection of Prospect St., we haven’t done any further surveys to located drives on the other side of Prospect & there is some concern there.
John Breanick – do you anticipate any access to Franklin St. there?
Daniel Flanders – no
Nicki Wright – you’re saying that houses will not be built on the Sennet side? The lots look pretty deep.
Steve Lynch – this is a very preliminary look. This is just a chance for the Board to see this, 1st glance. Depending on how the Board and developer feel in general, the developer will approach the town of Sennet to begin discussion. If things move forward favorably placement of the buildings on the lots will be more flexible. The whole development will move along more rapidly.
Chair – anyone else? Anything from staff?
Steve Lynch – what we did was have preliminary meeting with Mr. Flanders to go over the utilities that are available, the parameters involved, we provided them with the subdivision materials from our ordinance, etc. We highlighted the issue with the town of Sennet. Mr. Flanders came back with the 1st drawing mailed to you. We took that and presented it to Engineering, AFD, APD, Corp. Counsel, Codes & Planning. As a result of that meeting we talked about the storm water detention, lot 21, as a possibility that we recommended they investigate. Police and Fire had a lot of input, which resulted in the 1 way only, APD felt it was too close to the intersection of Franklin St. That is across the entry to the college. We also incorporated sidewalks. This
also resulted in the location of three water hydrants which will be tweaked a bit. These lots are of the size that is very desirable right now but not very available. This lot lends itself to being divided into a high number of lots with very limited infrastructure investment, it’s a good parcel for consideration of single-family development unlike other lots in the City with certain size constraints. Most of these lots are more than ½ acre. These are large lots in a suburban setting. A benefit to these lots is they are close to the college and Grant Ave but they are off Prospect St. and buffered by the houses there. This is zoned R1 and is an allowed use.
Chair – a couple comments. I’m still concerned about the one way only – I’m concerned about people driving at night, they’re going to 2 way and then all of a sudden it’s one way. This may be a difficult thing to work out. Also, this is a great opportunity for the City and for people who want to remain in the City or move in. Anyone else.
John Rogalski – I’m surprised there is good land still available. I’m happy about this.
John Breanick – wonder about viability of accessing land on Franklin St. for a 2 way flow of traffic. Has this been considered?
Daniel Flanders – it has been considered. We need to take a harder look at it. It is 45 mph from Sennet into the City.
Chair – is it necessary to have 2 roadways running into this area or is the one between lots 6 & 7 sufficient.
Jim Galvin – subdivision ordinance actually requires that a cul-de-sac can only go to 500 feet. Any expanse of the road to the south would be too long.
Sam Giangreco – maybe there can be a small turn around there, a service road along with the detention pond.
Chair – if you did have the road going both ways then you can limit it that way when coming out onto Prospect.
General discussion ensues
Chair – does that satisfy the requirement for the roadway.
Steve Lynch – is the road is there the emergency vehicles can get in regardless of the one-way access or whatever.
John Breanick – is there any possibility that the hours can be restricted that it can be a one-way street?
Steve Lynch – there’s a lot of flexibility depending on how APD & traffic feels about it. It has to be discussed. These are ideas that can be presented. I defer to Tom Weed, he’s out there every day.
Sam Giangreco – is it essential to have to have that one way coming in? You have 2 way coming in the other side & a circle on this side – could there be… Could you do away with that totally & have a turn around at that end.
Chair – there’s requirements that have to be met.
Steve Lynch – if we take this to the next step we will want to see the building envelopes, etc. depending on how your discussions go.
Chair – asks for any other matters. Next meeting is ~December 2, 2003.
Discussion ensues concerning requirements for presentation to the Board.
Chair asks for motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by John Rogalski.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
