City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, March 9, 2004 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Laurie Michelman, Sam Giangreco, John Rogalski, Mark DiVietro, John Breanick, Sandra Craner. Absent: Nicki Wright
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Brian Hicks, Codes; Tom Weed, APD
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Minutes of February 10, 2003
Chair – asks for a motion to approve the minutes of February 10, 2004. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for subdivision at 201 North St., Chammy’s Car Wash
Chair – invites the owner or agent to speak.
Richard Chamulak – Copley St. – wants to subdivide parcel between back building, to keep for personal use, and car wash.
Chair – asks the public for any comments. There being none closes the public hearing and asks the Board for any comments.
John Breanick – will the properties be sold?
Richard Chamulak – yes
John Breanick – for what uses?
Richard Chamulak – personal use on rear property, no additional buildings.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this is a minor subdivision, as it involves less than 4 parcels and no infrastructure or roads. Preliminary approval may be waived, it complies with zoning and there are no outstanding issues. Recommendation is for a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the subdivision as submitted.
Chair asks for a motion on SEQR. Motion for a negative declaration made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the subdivision as submitted. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 122 Clark St., Mickey’s Collision, construction of 48’ x 48’ building.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Lee Gauthier, owner, Wisteria Lane – wishes to build a 48’ x 48’ building adjacent to an existing building on the parcel. Was granted an Area Variance from the ZBA in February for side and rear setbacks. The new building will match the existing building, same color. It is located in the Empire Zone and will add jobs. Cleaning up the lot and adding landscaping. The building will be used for offices, storage and clean up bays. No working on vehicles will be done here. No direct noise or effect on the neighbors.
Chair asks for comments from the public. There being none closes the public hearing and asks for comments from the Board.
John Breanick – how wide are the entrances, as far as curb cuts, etc.
Lee Gauthier – no curb cuts are needed; there are 2 curb cuts there now.
John Breanick – any additional parking on that parcel.
Lee Gauthier – there is currently sufficient parking on the side and rear of the existing building. Clients only will park in front of the new building. Finished products, etc. will all be parked in front of the existing building.
Sam Giangreco – will landscaping be addressed?
Lee Gauthier – yes, per ordinance
John Rogalski – questions the type of building.
Lee Gauthier – steel, same as existing building, same contractor. Buildings meet or exceed code guidelines.
Laurie Michelman – in ZBA application paint fumes are mentioned. Will this be a problem?
Lee Gauthier – part of the reason for the 2nd paint booth is all painting will be done in the paint booth area and not in any open areas. OSHA has required all painting be done in booth. The booths will reduce any current fumes.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – Thanks Mr. Gauthier for updated plans. This is a small expansion of a permitted use adjacent to a residential use. An Area Variance has been granted for set backs and landscaping. Required landscaping will be done. There are no outstanding issues at this time. Recommendation is for a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan as submitted.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration for SEQR. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
John Breanick – asks how many parcels involved?
Lee Gauthier – it’s all on one parcel, one tax map number.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the site plan as submitted. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Special Use Permit 153 Grant Ave for animated sign.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Jim Williams, Kassis Signs, Syracuse – proposing an electrical, changeable copy board, LED, sign, underneath the main sign, to advertise products, events, etc. Has worked with other retailers in area also. Works as PR as well as merchandizing. Manual Changeable signs are difficult to change and maintain. LED is cleaner, more professional and effective, computer run - so easier to use. It will be 36” x 114” at corner underneath store sign.
Chair invites comments from the public.
Tim Lattimore – asks how much has been invested in the building?
Jim Williams – unknown, sign package itself is $50-$60,000 dollars, covering all signs on the property. All drug stores are multi-layered marketing tools, more than just drugs anymore. Most cases try to get corner with drive thru pharmacy which increases business 60 – 70%, primarily in 2 markets, the elderly and the family.
Chair closes public hearing and asks for comments from the Board.
John Rogalski – asks if sign is lit.
Jim Williams – yes, red letters on black background – distributes pictures of current Kinney’s Drugs on State St. as an example who is using LED’s with good results.
John Breanick – what is the time & duration of the messages?
Jim Williams – about 8/10 second.
John Breanick – can it be stretched out longer – there is some concern about this
Jim Williams – from a practical standpoint there are 1 –2 people in the store assigned to programming the messages.
John Breanick – can this be adjusted to the timing of the traffic light to be less of a distraction?
Jim Williams – it could be.
John Breanick – what hours will it be running?
Jim Williams – assuming when the store is closed the LED will be off – it will match the store hours. I don’t dictate that. That’s not in a neighborhood setting really so I don’t know that it would be a real distraction one-way or the other.
John Breanick – it is solid or pulsating?
Jim Williams – solid
John Breanick – the letter size will vary?
Jim Williams – yes, the software allows that. Typically 8 inch letters are desired to be seen easily from the road otherwise it’s ineffective.
John Breanick – traffic flow thru that area is 20-30,000/day. Flashing lights or letters too small would be a hazard.
Sam Giangreco – in comparison to the Kinney’s signs, this one is 3’ x about 9’ – the Kinney’s signs are smaller?
Jim Williams – they are 3’ x 8’2” – a little shorter.
Sam Giangreco – well, coming along Grant Ave, I think it will be difficult to time it with the lights, my concern is, if flashing, there will be people who may mistake the sign for a stop light & create problems there.
Jim Williams – we’ve sold about 10 right now without any negative impacts. They have been installed in high traffic areas. With the wording and the space in between it alleviates the look of solid red. Another reason for the larger lettering. The greater benefit of the sign is to be able to use a bigger letter. We’ll comply, and whatever decision the Board makes will be passed on, but we haven’t really had any problems. It’s been an asset. It gets attention as it’s supposed to do.
Laurie Michelman – asks Officer Weed to state his concerns.
Tom Weed – biggest concern isn’t the light but people speeding 40 – 45 mph, not looking ahead but at the sign, this is a cross walk for school kids, potentially very hazardous condition.
Laurie Michelman – my question is whether or not the sign could be moved away from the corner closer the Grant Ave access.
Tom Weed – no matter where it’s placed it will be a distraction, people will be taking their eyes off the road to read the sign.
John Breanick – asks Officer Weed if adjusting the timing would make any difference?
Tom Weed – not really, don’t know how it could be timed to the light.
Jim Williams – another problem is the City Engineer may have the light timed to a different frequency based on the time of day and the traffic flow. I don’t really know but that is how it is typically done.
Tom Weed – this light is owned by DOT and the timing is programmed by a remote in Syracuse. The timing does not change throughout the day.
Jim Williams – doesn’t know how timing could be done. What’s most important would be to not have less than 8-inch copy. An effective billboard is 3 to 5 words. Increasing the size of the lettering decreases the amount of copy displayed at any one time decreasing the amount of distraction. Keeping the message simple is a key element.
John Rogalski – what about 2 signs? One for the drug store and one closer to the building. With the LED sign on the building.
Jim Williams – haven’t seen it done that way. The LED’s are actually 2 single faced signs – even though it’s a double-faced setting – it’s 2 single faced put back to back on the pole. Attaching to the building would not be ideal.
Tim Lattimore – is it possible to not have a message while kids are crossing?
Tom Weed – it isn’t just kids crossing, it’s also the possible running of red lights.
Laurie Michelman – there was also a controversy concerning the light at the Fairgrounds also.
Jim Williams – there aren’t a lot of electronic message boards in NYS. The one at the Fair grounds is the same principle. I don’t know that there have been any major problems there. In other states there has been large numbers of these LED’s along interstates & there doesn’t seem to be problems. The officer here has a point that this is a heavy traffic area and maybe we need to put other stipulations on it as in the size of the copy. We can’t eliminate the foibles of people.
Sandy Craner – asks Officer Weed if there have been any problems with the LED’s at the Kinney’s.
Tom Weed – no but there is not much traffic at either area.
Laurie Michelman – what is the cause of most accidents at this intersection?
Tom Weed – tailgating, running red lights.
Laurie Michelman – any difference if the light was put on Standart Ave?
Tom Weed – no, it’s a bad intersection. 60% of accidents on Grant Ave happen here.
John Breanick – asks Steve Lynch if there have been any other projects where sign timing are adjusted to signal lights.
Steve Lynch – hasn’t seen it done. This signal is handled remotely. From a practical sense doesn’t see how this could be done. No matter what the message it will still be a distraction.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – judging from DRC recommendations which came from APD we wanted to give the Board as much flexibility as possible in decision making. Although we stand behind APD that it’s a potentially dangerous situation, I have included both a positive and negative declaration under SEQR and a positive approval resolution and a denial so the Board has all resources available to decide either way. You’ve heard APD’s recommendation, and that memo is enclosed, and that also is the DRC’s recommendation but Board has to make own decisions.
Jim Williams – intent behind the reader board is to communicate. It’s a matter how much distraction it will cause. I recommend to the retailers they work with the community to promote not-for-profits, etc. That’s your decision. My job is to sell the signs and products through the signs.
John Breanick – do you feel after what you’ve heard tonight that you would be able to address any of these concerns if we were to table this for a month.
Jim Williams – possibly, I would have to speak with Eckerd management to see how they would want to address this. I also have access to the main manufacturer of these signs.
Chair – asks the Board what they would like to do.
Polls the Board – recommendation is to table until next meeting for any further information.
Jim Williams – the LED is not an absolute must, the Eckerd sign will still go on. Would also like a traffic count of the area.
Tom Weed – will try to get that.
Tim Lattimore – states to keep in mind the possible proliferation of signs along Grant Ave. May start a sign “war”.
Chair – at the next meeting alternate proposals can be submitted along with traffic studies, economic difficulties, etc.
John Breanick – makes motion to table application, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters
John Rogalski – questions the zone change in the Seymour St. area
Steve Lynch – we’re hoping to bring that before the Planning Board in April, we’re still working on those packages. We’ve had staff out doing survey of all the uses in the different C1 areas throughout the City, they are being mapped, and we have spoken with Corporation Counsel and Code Enforcement.
Chair – since we are going to be reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, the Dept of State has information that helps planning boards with these types of issues. Asks the Board to start thinking about things that may need to be addressed.
John Rogalski – questions the progress on the Prospect St. subdivision.
Steve Lynch – spoke with Mr. Vitale – the site plan drainage materials delivered to the office has been reviewed by Engineering and they’ve determined they need some additional materials to clarify some of the intent of the drainage plan. That letter went out Monday, spoke with Mr. Vitale this morning and he has asked that we think about employing a 3rd party to look at the drainage issues separately from the Engineering Dept. to get an objective 3rd part opinion which he would be willing to pay the fee. I’ve started a request for fee proposals for this. We hope to be able to get in on the April Planning Board if all material is made available in time. Mr. Vitale was told all info needed to be in 3 weeks prior. However, we’re still waiting for the final
review from the town of Sennett and their final SEQR comments. Re: annexation issues, I recommend this Board proceeds thru getting the information on the drainage, thru SEQR, gets comments from Sennett, to final site plan review, once that’s done Mr. Vitale has to ask the City to annex the property. If we do that before hand it could be said the Board was prejudiced toward the decision because the property had already been annexed.
Chair – next meeting is April 6, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. Asks for motion to adjourn. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
| 
