City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, March 1, 2005 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Laurie Michelman, Sam Giangreco, John Rogalski, Mark DiVietro, John Breanick, Sandra Craner. Absent: Nicki Wright (excused)
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Nancy Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Stephen Selvek, Planner; Tom Weed, APD
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes of February 1, 2005.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of February 1, 2005. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval with Laurie Michelman abstaining. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review for 8,600 SF office building at 276R Grant Ave.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Peter Crissey – building meets all zoning requirements. The requested traffic study has been done and copies distributed. The traffic study concludes that a 30 car parking area will have little to no impact on the traffic in the area. There are no other changes from last month’s presentation.
Chair invites public to speak.
Charles Augello, Brookside Dr. – addressed traffic concerns at the last meeting. Brookside Dr. is only 1/10 mile long. South side is posted “no parking”. There are four commercial accesses on Brookside and a home occupation beauty shop. Traffic-trailers are also still accessing the auto parts store from Brookside which they are not supposed to do we were told at the last meeting. The street is narrow and steep. Another commercial enterprise won’t be good for the neighborhood. Thinks that people will be coming/going all day. Area is also in a school bus route. Would like an alternate access considered.
Chair asks for other public comments (there are none) and Chair closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Sandra Craner – wasn’t alternate access already discussed?
Peter Crissey- we could have used Prospect St. but being so close to Grant Ave we felt it would have minimal impact on the residential aspect to have it at Brookside.
Laurie Michelman – asks Tom Weed for his input.
Tom Weed - APD concurs with the conclusions presented in the traffic study.
John Breanick – questions the bus route (school buses)
Peter Crissey – we can’t do anything about that.
Charles Augello – the stop is at the corner there.
Sandra Craner – the plans show sidewalks, are they there or are they proposed.
Peter Crissey – they will be installed there.
Sandra Craner – so the kids can go on the sidewalk and get out of the road
Peter Crissey – yes and also all traffic stops when the bus is loading or unloading.
John Rogalski – would a traffic light be helpful?
Tom Weed - not there
John Breanick – asks Tom Weed if there is any consideration to divert traffic away from Prospect St. or to make this section of Brookside Drive one-way?
Tom Weed – the intersection would have to be reconfigured.
John Breanick – there are 2 proposed developments in this area. Were they figured into the traffic study?
Tom Weed – they are 2 separate issues and separate plans.
John Breanick – is there any way to utilize the auto parts store access?
Tom Weed – We looked at that at the original Design Review Committee meeting, the grading issues wouldn’t allow it.
John Breanick – is there any idea of who will be the occupant?
Peter Crissey – no marketing has been done yet. Leaning more towards insurance company type business rather than professional type such as a doctor’s office.
John Breanick- wouldn’t the type of business have an impact on traffic?
Steve Lynch – the study shows traffic volume numbers for three different business types. The study conclusions were based on the most dense business use so that a very conservative estimate would be used. The numbers used in the traffic study conclusions are three times what is expected from the proposed use.
Laurie Michelman – questions if the trees removed will be replaced
Peter Crissey – we have created all the necessary screening required.
Laurie Michelman – is this sufficient for the lower portion of the area due to distance of the building?
Steve Lynch – it will depend on how long it takes for the trees to mature. The people at the lower end around Bowen will not have screening until the trees grow in. But there was not that much screening there to start with.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – at the February meeting the Board thought a traffic analysis was needed. Staff secured a traffic analysis by a third party independent traffic engineering firm. The engineer is the same individual who completed traffic analysis for the KFC, the proposed Sunoco at Wal-Mart, the proposed Geneva Bank on Grant Ave across from Wal-Mart and the Connector Road project, so he has significant experience of traffic in the immediate project area. The results of that study are in your packets. Morning and afternoon peak traffic was looked at. Reads the results and conclusion (that the proposed project will not create any significant traffic impacts and that the circulation on Brookside Drive and the internal circulation of the site will provide both safe and efficient vehicular movements). With regard
to storm water management, a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan was prepared for the project. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and he has provided his approval in writing (the Engineering memo is in the Board packets).
The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project plans and traffic analysis in detail and recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a review on SEQR.
Steve Lynch – we looked at the SEQR review also included in your packets. The traffic study is discussed and included in SEQR, noting minimal traffic impacts. Also noted is that the building will be made to blend in with the neighborhood for low impact on community character. The SEQRA also addresses the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Recommendation is for a negative declaration.
Laurie Michelman – asks for any questions on SEQR.
John Breanick – wants a make a motion to table until the occupancy of the building is determined as he thinks it will impact the traffic issues.
Laurie Michelman – it is not within the purview of this Board to make a determination of occupancy.
John Breanick – what if they put something else there after it’s approved?
Laurie Michelman – they can’t, they have to comply with the plan submitted and approved.
Steve Lynch – With regard to the SEQRA review, the Board has looked at all of the SEQR issues, including the traffic report and stated concurrence by APD that the traffic will not create any significant impacts. If the Board plans to issue a positive declaration, it must also identify the potential impacts leading to the positive impact determination. The next step would then be for the applicant to proceed with a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a scoping session to identify the impacts that need to be mitigated. If traffic is the issue that the Board is concerned with, and we have completed a traffic analysis and the Police Department traffic officer has supported the report’s conclusions, I am not clear how much further can we go to define potential environmental issues. The Board can
reject the traffic study conclusions and declare a positive declaration if it desires to do so, but the Board will then need to give staff and the applicant direction the issues involved so the staff and applicant can proceed accordingly.
John Rogalski – worried that there are already so many accesses there, and it is a bus route.
John Breanick – also the traffic study does not address other potential development along Prospect St. These developments would add traffic there also. They did a good job of mitigating the drainage though, which was another concern.
Laurie Michelman – what does the Board want to do? We need to give the applicant direction.
Peter Crissey – it is not within the purview of this Board to determine tenancy.
Nancy Hussey – as long as the zoning requirements for the intended use are met.
Peter Crissey – we were asked to do a traffic study and it’s been done. Now because there might be other development we are being put off? Are they doing traffic studies also?
Sam Giangreco – this is a catch 22 – there is progress on Grant Ave and on Prospect St. There will be winners and losers. Further studies will not bring different results. We’re asking this project to suffer the consequences for future proposed uses. Time has been taken to look at things there. The proposed office building would be the least impact building there. Prolonging the process won’t make any difference.
Laurie Michelman – I agree. The traffic study we asked for was done and APD concurs with the findings. Personal opinions cannot over-ride the professional findings. I also agree this is the best use for the property to be developed and not remain vacant and unsightly. Asks Tom Weed’s opinion on the other developments.
Tom Weed – there will be 7 additional driveways from one project (the proposed residential subdivision at 62-86 Prospect Street).
Steve Lynch – (to Tom Weed) characterizing the role of Prospect St. would be that is functions as a collector road, correct?
Tom Weed – yes, the biggest traffic problem there is actually the college, not the residences or businesses.
Sandra Craner – this is the best use for the corner and the applicant has addressed all issues. I could support a negative declaration.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members except John Breanick vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the site plan as submitted. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members except John Breanick vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing – Home Occupation Special Permit at 158 Ross St. Ext. Chiropractic office.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Kevin Coleman, Ross St. Ext – distributes further plans. Request is for a home occupation. Plan is to renovate an existing 13x19 garage with an addition of 253 sq ft into a chiropractic office. Reasons for this are the overhead for current rent on North St. is too expensive. Also time constraints as he has his children to care for. Has been picking up part time jobs to help with costs. Hours of operation would be M – F, 9 –5, with about 15-20 patients a week. The lot size is 110 x 260; the house is 1800 sq ft with 1 driveway 12 x 40. Plan is to put in additional driveway space to the side of the driveway. Can fit 3 deep in at this time (stacking vehicles) but not side to side. There is 70 feet between the driveway & the neighbor, enough for
additional drive space.
Chair invites the public to speak.
Meg Vanek, N. Hunter Ave – doesn’t have a problem with the business but it would change the character of the neighborhood. Signs would be allowed and it would set precedence for other businesses to develop. It is an older, settled neighborhood and we don’t want the historic character to be changed.
Chair – closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – if another garage is added, where will it be?
Kevin Coleman – the west side of the property.
John Breanick – have you spoken with the neighbors.
Kevin Coleman – yes and response has been positive
John Breanick – do you have any letters of support (none)
Laurie Michelman – but the neighborhood was given proper notice of this action.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – without looking at the (future) garage construction, we see someone giving up a garage for a home occupation. Current driveway can be enlarged to add one parallel parking space per code requirements. In the future, to build a new garage and driveway the current drive would have to be eliminated. Clients are not allowed to stack (parking). The owner can park their personal vehicle(s) on the street to allow client parking in the drive. Sign allowed is 2 sq ft (1x1) attached to the house. This is a very low-key home occupation if the clientele is limited to the numbers and hours that have been projected in the application. The Board does have the discretion to put limitations on the home occupation to protect the character of the residential
neighborhood.
John Rogalski – concern is for future business uses.
Steve Lynch – any future business proposals for home occupations would also be required to come to this Board for review. The Board would consider them on a case-by-case basis.
Laurie Michelman – we can’t do a provisional review, as a financial stake would have already been made. Future projects would be looked at individually.
John Breanick – The Board could impose some kind of limit on patient load, such as no more than 40 patients per week, or it would need to come back before the Board as it would create further issues.
Kevin Coleman – this is not planned as a permanent thing, just to get my career going. When I get to a certain level, I should be able to afford a different space.
Laurie Michelman – 40 people per week sounds ok. Also M-F, 9-5, with the exception of emergencies.
Steve Lynch – recommends a 5-year sunset on the home occupation.
Kevin Coleman – states it is his goal to be well established within the five years.
John Breanick – agrees with a 5-year sunset to return to the Board for any further consideration.
Steve Lynch – would also like the staff to have authority to review the parking plan.
Laurie Michelman – it would be conditional on staff review of the parking issue. We would be comfortable with that so it would not have to be brought back to the Board.
John Breanick – questions the distance to the east neighbor.
Kevin Coleman – there is five feet on the east side of the house to the property line.
John Breanick – where would the parking expansion be?
Kevin Coleman – to the west.
John Breanick – asks if this is allowable.
Steve Lynch – yes, he can go in and move it over 12 feet – a parallel space to the main driveway.
Laurie Michelman – so we will make a conditional home occupation to include a 5-year sunset, no more than 40 patients, hours of 9-5, M-F and parking review by staff. Anything on SEQR?
Steve Lynch – has no comments for SEQR.
Chair – asks for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair – asks for a motion for conditional site plan approval for special permit for home occupation. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for preliminary subdivision at 62-68 Prospect St. for 7 residential lots on Prospect St. and 10 lots off Hickory St.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Ken Kemp, Townline Rd. Marcellus, architect for BDA. The proposal is for 17 lots on 17 acres. The Sennett/Auburn city lines are down the middle of the project. All lots meet the standards of the City where they are located. There will be seven lots fronting Prospect St. The current owners have requested the street extending from Hickory to be named Sheftic St. Catch basins for storm water and a detention pond are noted. The property is currently a farm field and run off will actually be reduced after development. Drainage is on the other side and detention is in both areas. Water and sewer access is from Hickory and we will extend this to service the lots. There is a fire hydrant in the area. New water lines will be installed. We are aware of the water pressure
problems and one-inch lines will be required. Sanitary sewers are noted. The forever green/nature area is about two acres and is never meant to be developed. The project applicant (Mr. Jones) would retain ownership of the parcel and it will be a park-like area available to the residents of the development.
Chair invites the public to speak.
Robert Elser, Prospect St. – congratulates the developer. Spoke earlier about the office building, thinks is it aesthetically nice. This project will bring more people into the area. Did mention run off – when the field is not planted there is a great amount. This is very exciting for the neighborhood and everyone seems happy so far. These are the best plans shown so far, looking forward to it.
There being no other public comments, the Chair closes the public hearing and reads into the record a letter received from Ms. Carol Tripicano of Hickory St., expressing concerns over the extension of Hickory St. A previous denial was given to extend this street for a proposed commercial development. Apparently the Board at that time stated the street would always remain a dead end.
John Breanick – this area in Sennett (indicating the Sennett area on the map), is the developer willing to stipulate it will only be developed residential and not commercial?
Larry Jones – it is only zoned residential, not commercial. I never addressed the issue but it will not be developed commercially. Believes Sennett does have commercial area next to Auburn’s residential area.
Steve Lynch – look at this concern in the practical sense also. Final Subdivision Plans are also being proposed to Sennett as a residential development at the same time that we are reviewing it. We anticipate final decision from Sennett this month, which would mandate that the residential development be constructed as they are shown on the plans being presented. This should address these concerns. We will check the zoning in the adjacent areas.
SEQR is not required for the preliminary approval. The preliminary approval states the development is appropriate with regard to layout, street design and other functional issues. Preliminary approval informs the applicant that the plans are going in the right direction and it is appropriate to develop final plans. The preliminary approval, if it is passed tonight, will be forwarded to Sennett as an Involved Agency in the SEQRA review.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plans as submitted. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters
John Breanick – President Bush has recommended decreasing CDBG funds. It is important that agencies concerned contact those needed to address this issue.
Steve Lynch – we have given a synopsis to our elected federal representatives of what will happen if these cuts are supported and made. We have also enlisted the aid of other agencies and grantees for letters of support.
John Breanick – we can’t put enough emphasis on nipping this in the bud.
Laurie Michelman - I think it would be appropriate to send in a prototype letter from the members here.
Steve Lynch – would be glad to do it.
John Breanick – is a resolution appropriate?
Steve Lynch – we did a similar one for Council last week, we can do one for the Board.
Chair – asks for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
| 
