City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Sam Giangreco, John Rogalski, Mark DiVietro, John Breanick, Laurie Michelman, Nicki Wright. Absent: Sandra Craner
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Nancy Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Stephen Selvek, Planner; Tom Weed, APD; Brian Hicks, Sr. 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 of May 3, 2005 and May 31, 2005.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of both May 3 and May 31. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for Minor Subdivision at 107 South St.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
James Solon, Executor for the estate of Joseph Solon – is requesting a subdivision of 107 South St. to create a buildable lot fronting Fitch Ave.
Chair invites the public to speak.
Kevin Hoey, Fitch Ave – property abuts the east line of 107 South St. and has lived there since 1992. Has done extensive renovations to own home. New proposed lot already has a for sale sign on the right-of-way which seems to be a presumptive act. Opposed to the subdivision, does not believe it to be minor as described. Lot is included in the Historic District which is characterized by large homes on large lots. Allowing a large home on a small lot is not within the character of the neighborhood. Creating a narrow lot having to comply with Historic Resources Review Board, probably will need to be stick build and not in keeping with the large home/large lot idea. When the carriage home was there they did auto repair on site. We believe the area to be contaminated.
We know AFD did an investigation there once but do not know the outcome. The site needs to be cleaned 1st. If the lot is sold it still has the apartment building there which has been a source of continual problems. On back of the lot is a burned out barn that has not been taken care of yet which also poses a problem. What it will end up as is a vacant lot with a for sale sign there forever. The back of the property is overgrown with bushes and weeds. History of snow removal and bush trimming is dismal. We will be sitting next to an overgrown lot while continuing to improve our property.
Jackie Gumtow, Hamilton Ave – concerned since this is part of the Historic District. Part of the charm is the large homes on the large lots and the great amount of green space. This subdivision would be a disservice to the Historic District, to start dividing out green space. Dismayed to learn the property is already on the market. Greatest concern is for setting a precedent for other subdivisions.
Robert Dankirk, South St. – confused since when the carriage house collapsed the owner was told it had to be rebuilt as it was but a new owner can build a new house there.
Kathy Diviney, South St. – concurs with the opinions expressed so far. With respect to the apartments there, concern is for congestion it causes and a new dwelling will cause. There should be some attempt to preserve the historical character of the area.
Robert Cotter, 111 South St. – had no objection to the subdivision. This property abuts mine at the south side.
Chair closes the Public Hearing and asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – how many apartments are at 107 South?
Jim Solon – four apartments. It was initially built as a single family in the 1800’s and additions were made to it in the late 1800’s to make it a four unit.
John Breanick – number of occupants?
Jim Solon – each apartment has 3 bedrooms. 2 apartments are 950 sq ft, 2 are 1200 sq ft. They are usually rented to couples or couples with one child. Right now 2 apartments are rented to couples and 2 are vacant.
John Breanick – what are the parking arrangements?
Jim Solon – there is a circular drive around the building with off-street parking provided.
John Breanick – if the subdivision is allowed would you be willing to reduce the house back to a single or a 2 unit?
Jim Solon – no
Laurie Michelman – that is out of the pervue of this Board, we cannon require that as a condition.
Nancy Hussey – it is too large a restriction as alienation of land exceeds the Board’s authority.
Sam Giangreco – what are your intentions?
Jim Solon – apologizes for the for sale sign, did not know the realtor had installed it. The apartment house has been sold subject to the subdivision approval and the created lot will be used to build a personal dwelling.
Sam Giangreco – took a look at the area. Presumptive to use – going on at the house – knows that doesn’t concur. Knew a tenant that lived there was nothing but trouble. The neighborhood people have spent a lot of money on South St. and this house is not being cared for.
Jim Solon – the new owner is purchasing the property as four units only. If he wishes to increase the number of units it is up to you to approve or disapprove it.
John Rogalski – after listening to the neighbors, worried about concerns of neglect of the property.
Jim Solon – if the subdivision is approved any building proposed would need the approval of the Historic Resources Review Board and Code Enforcement.
Nicki Wright – is the sale of the house predicated on the subdivision?
Jim Solon – yes, we will keep the lot, we must purchase it from the estate.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – to reiterate some of the facts. In the memo the subdivision is referred to as minor, as it is not creating many lots, a minor subdivision is one that creates less than four lots without any additional infrastructure.
It is currently an L shaped lot. The subdivision will result in 2 lots with the lot at 107 South being 27,000 sq ft accessed on Fitch Ave and fronting on South St. The proposed new lot will be 25,000 sq ft. While it is true that many of the homes on South St. are contained on large lots, not all of them are. The property immediately south of the subject property has 140-foot frontage x 233-foot depth. The new created lot will have a 120-foot frontage and a 264-foot depth, which is about the same square footage. The proposed lot to be created meets all the requirements of the zoning to build a single-family dwelling. Concerning the discarded carriage barn, if the structure were to be repaired it would likely be required to be repaired to its original condition by the Historic Resources Review Board (HRRB).
Likewise, a new house would be under the review and approval of the HRRB. At that point, it would not be required to appear before this Board. Under SEQRA the Board can consider the character of the neighborhood, however, the Board should be aware that if someone wants to build a home here the plans shall come under the review of the HRRB. It is their responsibility to ensure that whatever gets constructed in the historic district is in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Taking into consideration, and understanding the neighbors concerns related to the character of the neighborhood, staff understands that any future building would be reviewed by the HRAB with regard to neighborhood character and therefore staff does not see a significant environmental impact. The Board may discuss the character of the neighborhood as an environmental impact. This could be the setting for a nice home. It is across from the church & the Montessori school.
Sam Giangreco – if the carriage house is rebuilt can it be used as a multiple dwelling?
Steve Lynch – this is an R2 zone which does allow multi-family dwellings. It would have to comply with current zoning laws. It would, again, come under review of the HRRB who would also have to do SEQR review.
Laurie Michelman – asks Corporation Counsel about any limitation in the pervue of this Board.
Nancy Hussey – limited to HRRB to character of new house. This Board can consider the character of the neighborhood.
John Breanick – are there any violations on the property?
Brian Hicks – yes, a Certificate of Occupancy inspection was just performed and those are the only violations at this time.
Laurie Michelman – can that impact the decision.
Nancy Hussey – it is not relevant to this matter.
Steve Lynch – the Board has to look at this situation, this is a subdivision in the Historic District, meeting all the requirements of the underlying R2 zone. The Historic District is an overlay zone.
Nicki Wright – are there any environmental issues?
Steve Lynch – that is between the buyer and seller and not under the discretion of this Board.
Laurie Michelman – asks Steve Lynch to review SEQR.
Steve Lynch – reviews SEQR: on question with regard to noise, odor generation, etc:
John Breanick – is there significant noise from the house?
- Yes (unclear who made this comment)
Steve Lynch – continues review: On question with regard to character of neighborhood:
John Breanick – believes it would impact neighborhood significantly
John Rogalski – would HRRB have anything to do with the new building?
Steve Lynch – they would review and coordinate with anyone else involved. No new houses have been built since the Historic District designation to it’s hard to say exactly what the review would entail.
Sam Giangreco – concurs with John Breanick along with the concerns of the neighbors. There are too many unknowns here. It is unknown what is coming in, what is being done to the existing house. We need to preserve the character of the neighborhood. 107 has potential for the right person. It is a bad move at this time.
Jim Solon – if a home is for sale, in an estate, and there is a buyer, how does one (a Board Member) get involved in determining whom to sell to?
Laurie Michelman – we’re not going to get into this debate.
Jim Solon – the seller cannot put a limitation on the buyer.
Sam Giangreco – it is my personal feeling to take into consideration the neighbors who have been so vocal.
Jim Solon – the buyer will be renovating to the original conditions & is not adding any more units.
Laurie Michelman- right now we have gone beyond what the role of this Board is, some good points have been made but they are outside the pervue of this Board.
Nancy Hussey – that is correct. Reads Section 305.13c of the Municipal Zoning Ordinance into the record. This Board is looking at the technical review of the land only, not the structures and not the uses.
Steve Lynch – looking at the technical review of the land requires SEQR review. With regard to impact on the neighborhood, this lot is not being cut into a cookie cutter lot. It will be a 25,000 sq ft lot with mature trees. HRRB will review for approval anything proposed to go there. Possibly a residential structure on a large lot. Continues SEQR review.
There was a comment concerning precedent being set, not many lots here (in Historic District) can be subdivided. This is unique as it is an L shaped lot with frontage on Fitch Ave.
Staff recommendation is for a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the subdivision as presented.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. No such motion is made. A Motion for a positive declaration made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro.
John Breanick – asks for review of procedure as not many positive declarations are voted on.
Steve Lynch – positive declaration states the Board believes there is a significant environmental impact. The Board needs to explain the issues too; they can be addressed and sent to the applicant to follow through on the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Laurie Michelman – in the meantime there is a hold on the subdivision.
Steve Lynch – yes, SEQR issues need to be resolved prior to the final subdivision vote.
Laurie Michelman – the secretary will call roll and each member will explain the reason for their vote.
Mark DiVietro – feels it would have a definite impact on the neighborhood. Sell as a whole, renovate the house then subdivide.
Nicki Wright – abstains
John Rogalski – agrees with Mark DiVietro
John Breanick – the neighborhood impact will significantly change the character if the noise levels persist.
Sam Giangreco – there is environmental, neighborhood and historic impact. There are code violations on the house. Concerned with what will be built on the lot.
Laurie Michelman – votes no. Does not believe there are any detrimental impacts. Understand the issues and concerns raised but the Board does not have the pervue to consider some of the factors being considered. But the motion has been made and carried.
Steve Lynch – it is up to the applicant to pursue this further, working with Staff and the Board to mitigate circumstances. Perhaps we can work with HRRB also.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 218 Grant Ave
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Paul Sheneman, engineer – Wendy’s prefers to demolish the current building and rebuild. The new building will be more energy efficient with site improvements, better drainage and lighting.
Chair invites the public to speak.
Marty Baumes, owner of greenhouses next door – there have been drainage problems for a number of years - always in the spring. Has had to pump out the greenhouses before. It was 18 inches deep 2 years ago. Not against the plan but does not think it will work. They expect the water to go in an east direction to the drainage ditch but it will not go that way. It goes under the pavement under the building of the greenhouses nearest the street. Does not object to rebuilding but drainage needs to be addressed.
Chair closes the Public Hearing and asks the Board for comments. Points out there is a memo where the City Engineer has reviewed and approved drainage plans.
John Breanick – asks if Wendy’s has spoken with Mr. Baumes and agree that he brings up something that needs to be addressed.
Paul S. – we have depicted the area he speaks of on the site plan – it is noted by the dotted line. Proposed plan does not do anything better or worse to the area.
John Breanick – should it?
Paul S. – it’s a double-edged sword. It serves as a detention area to slowly release water out. It may be possible to put in a catch basin in conjunction with Mr. Baumes. To drain at an elevation lower than the greenhouses with a small diameter pipe to the rear of the property.
John Breanick – would Wendy’s bear the cost?
Paul S. – the owners would have to discuss this.
Jeff Cogman, Wendy’s – we would be willing to contribute to the cost. Our concern would be maintenance as the entire project (additional drainage work) is actually on Mr. Baumes’ property.
John Breanick - asks Mr. Baumes his feelings.
Marty Baumes – there is a 2-inch water line there, it depends on getting the right grade to get the pitch of water out of the area behind the greenhouses. Can try it, wants to get the water out.
Jeff C. – the problem was created 30 years ago.
Laurie Michelman – questions the source of the problem from an engineering perspective.
Marty Baumes – thinks it’s ½ & ½.
Laurie Michelman – agrees that it is a shared issue.
Marty Baumes – states Wendy’s curbing created the problem when it was put in
John Rogalski – will have to work with the City Engineer to resolve.
Steve Lynch – During the storm water review, Bill Lupien, the City Engineer, was primarily concerned with water on Wendy’s site only; that is what he reviewed. The issue is the natural drainage from the south to Wendy’s is that Wendy’s lot is higher than Baumes so the water stays on the Baumes property. When Wendy’s was built it created a dam so that water remained on Baumes’ property. It would need additional engineering to correct.
Paul S. – we can put a catch basin to connect to the swale along the south parking lot behind Wendy’s leading to the stream.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this is an allowed use in the C3 zone. The parcel meets the size requirements using nearly the same building footprint. Accesses remain the same. There is an increased rear buffer. They received a variance for the north line for 6’ buffer along Corporate Dr. They will retain the existing planting in the front. The memo from engineering has already been read into the record.
Laurie Michelman – asks APD for any traffic problems (none). Asks if a review of SEQR is needed.
John Breanick – would like additional catch basin to be added to the SEQR resolution.
Laurie Michelman – it is recommended as part of site plan that drainage be resolved prior to going through with the project.
Steve Lynch – yes, it is on the SEQR portion of the site plan.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Nicki Wright, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
John Breanick – address wording.
Steve Lynch – any comments on the application?
Paul S. - we do not have strict control over the process, if implemented we need the neighbor’s cooperation but Wendy’s is able to commit.
John Breanick – it appears the neighbor is amenable.
Marty Baumes – yes, that is fine
Laurie Michelman – it is still contingent on the neighbor’s cooperation.
Nancy Hussey – the neighbor is not part of the application is the concern.
Laurie Michelman – we cannot make him part of it.
Paul S. – Wendy’s will be happy to assume and will design a solution and, with the neighbor’s cooperation and permission, will implement it also.
Laurie Michelman – what about a time limit?
Nancy Hussey – that would require a performance bond, which is beyond the authority of the Board in this case. The applicant’s statement on record is enough.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a motion on site plan.
Steve Lynch – working on the new wording. Reads Exhibit A into the record.
Paul S. – it (wording of the resolution) brings us back to where we don’t have control of the land where the work is to be implemented. We need an agreement with Mr. Baumes.
Mary Baumes – is agreeable.
Steve Lynch – approval is contingent on the development of the plan and provision of official agreement between the parties that the plan can be implemented.
Laurie Michelman – if more time is required return with the agreement but this is the best way to get it done for now.
Steve Lynch – there are some concerns from staff. The pre-existing conditions are not fully Wendy’s responsibility.
Nancy Hussey – the design is to mitigate the problem for the neighbor and is a courtesy by Wendy’s above and beyond the scope of this site plan. It can be part of the resolution to provide the plan but implementation is not within the pervue of this Board, and holding up the site plan is in excess of the scope of this Board on this application.
Laurie Michelman – concerned that it’s a serious issue and would require other applicants to address.
Steve Lynch – this is not a problem Wendy’s created. We are asking them to mitigate a problem on someone else’s property.
Nancy Hussey – if it’s caused by the site plan presented to this Board then yes, but it isn’t.
Laurie Michelman – for review, what would be the most authority we can implement?
Steve Lynch – we can say they will form a plan.
Laurie Michelman – then is everyone satisfied?
Steve Lynch – this is as far as the Board can go.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the site plan with revised Exhibit A. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 197 Grant Ave for auto service station at Wal-Mart.
Chair invites the owner or agent to speak.
Pete Giovenko, Bergman and Associates – to continue the approval process, we had received comment from Staff and the Board which were addressed. Reconfigured landscaping to rotate around to buffer the adjacent landowner and Grant Ave views. There is a re-striping plan that will be more visible; the current striping is worn off. Wal-Mart property management has agreed to an annual re-striping program. We have approval from City Engineering for the drainage plan.
Chair invites the public to speak. There are none. Closes the Public Hearing. Asks the Board for comments. There are none. Asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this proposal received preliminary approval last month. They have worked out the issues mentioned. Other issues addressed at the last meeting. Traffic will be captured from Wal-Mart and Lowe’s shoppers, so there will not be a noticeable increase in traffic. Staff and DRC recommend a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan as submitted.
Chair asks for a motion for negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval with Sam Giangreco voting negative. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion for approval of site plan. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval with Sam Giangreco voting negative. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 5: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 150 & 160 Grant Ave for Walgreen’s Drug Store.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak
Mike O’Neil, American Group I , representing HDL Properties. Introduces Guy Hart, Jr. of HDL; Brian Donovan of HDL, Greg Sgromo of Sgromo Engineering and John Smith, property owner. They have taken into consideration the comments of the Board. Speaking this evening only about the proposed Walgreen’s parcel of 14,000 sq ft. Some comments received we concurred with re: the demo of P&C, landscaping requirements, internal curbed islands, placement of stop sign/bar. Attorneys are working on portions of the Taco Bell space, will mutually agree to the satisfaction of all. Access from N. Seward to Taco Bell will be done. Without a lot of detail for infrastructure will address traffic. Meeting with DOT to discuss the Grant Ave access. There is full access from N. Seward. We desire a left turn out onto Grant Ave; DOT approved right in/right out only at this time. DOT will control this issue and will accede to that. Would like directions to issues of signage specifically the pylon
sign. (Distributes sign plans) One involves the traditional sign with changeable letters under the main sign - we think it meets City code. The other alternative is a monument sign with LED letters that are not moving but will be changing. Controlled within the store. Would like to present alternatives to the applicant. Manual moveable sign the letters fall off and is more difficult to keep updates. The LED sign is changeable but not flashing.
Laurie Michelman – asks Steve Lynch to review what was done for Eckerd’s request for an LED sign.
Steve Lynch – the Eckerd request for a moveable LED sign was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mike O’Neil – but this doesn’t flash, once up it stays up.
Guy Hart – the difference between the changeable and LED reader is primarily advertisement can be changed more frequently like every 1 to 2 hours. The sign does not roll, scroll or flash. It has 4 different reader boards. This is the most restrictive of them. Offering the idea as a more aesthetically attractive sign.
Mike O’Neil – looking at the whole package, it’s a brick piered, more attractive sign also using an Amber Alert system and municipal messages.
Laurie Michelman – how often would the message changed. Traffic is a great concern here.
Guy Hart – every 20 minutes. It can be restricted. There are few different messages to be posted through out the day.
Laurie Michelman – asks Steve Lynch the procedure. ZBA?
Steve Lynch – yes, they need to seek a variance.
Chair invites members of the public to speak. There are none. Closes the Public Hearing. Asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – asks how the other signs would be displayed for the other parcels.
Mike O. – We have a couple options. The pylon sign at the corner with all businesses listed under it or a monument sign at the corner for Walgreen’s and a monument sign closet to Taco Bell with the remainder of the businesses listed.
John Breanick – so that would be 1 pylon sign or 2 monument signs (yes)
Sam Giangreco – so if you do the monument signs will Taco Bell be on them?
Mike O. – no, they have their own separate sign which happens to be the tallest one on Grant Ave – they won’t want to get rid of that.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this received preliminary approval last month. Some items have been revised. They are required to fully demolish & clean up the P & C. DOT has agreed that the City is lead agency for SEQR. APD and DRC have no issues with full access at Grant Ave although DOT has recommended a right in/right out only. No left turn access will have an impact as people will try to access through Taco Bell and it will increase traffic on N. Seward. Applicant is working with DOT to revise for full access. Would like approval with right in/right but, if DOT agrees to the full access, would like approval for that also, so they do not have to come back to the Board as long as no other part of the plan is changed. Recommendation is for a negative declaration on SEQR and approval
of the site plan with those conditions.
John Breanick – what is the distance from the corner to the Grant Ave access?
Mike O. – 105 feet
John Breanick - & to Taco Bell?
Greg Sgromo – approximately 420 feet
John Breanick – this is different than the KFC further down where access is so much closer to the corner.
Steve Lynch – rationale from DOT was because of the queuing lane in Grant Avenue.
John Breanick – since one access is being removed full access should be allowed.
Greg Sgromo – fully agree, it currently has full access. They are aware of this but have some concerns.
Mike O. – it would be helpful if it were part of the resolution.
Steve Lynch – the resolution allows both ways. Whatever DOT allows, the applicant will not have to return to the Board unless other portions of the site change significantly.
Laurie Michelman – we are making a decision but allowing an alternative.
Steve Lynch – Yes, DOT has final say over the access.
John Breanick – how does the developer fee?
Mike O. – would prefer full access. Believes it would flow better.
Tom Weed – concurs
Greg Sgromo – one point is that full access would reduce crossing the site
John Breanick – the hill on N. Seward can be treacherous, increased traffic should be avoided
Steve Lynch – with regard to DOT – reads proposed resolution – applicant is given leeway to come to a decision. Right now the focus is on Walgreen’s, the other buildings will be presented to the Board as they come into development. Recommendation for now is a negative declaration on SEQR.
Motion for a negative declaration for SEQR made by John Breanick, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Steve Lynch – with regard to the resolution, in Exhibit A, remove section D, as that is not part of phase I.
Laurie Michelman – addressing signage, the site plan has a proposed sign location.
Steve Lynch – it is to be without the LED reader on any signs. Showing all permitted sign styles only.
Mike O. – we need to indicate to applicant which way to go.
John Breanick – will both monument signs be illuminated?
Mike O. – the Walgreen’s sign with the LED feature will go to the ZBA. The pylon sign does not need a variance. The second monument sign will be internally illuminated and would come back in phase 2.
John Breanick – the LED can be set at anytime?
Mike O. – yes
Nancy Hussey – that needs to be reviewed by Codes to make a determination for ZBA. The Code Enforcement Officer interprets the code.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a motion on site plan. Motion for approval made by John Rogalski, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters
Steve Lynch – concerning the special use permit for a Chiropractic office on 158 Ross St. Ext. We received a letter asking for clarification of what was approved. (Passes out letter and response).
Brian Hicks – A site plan was approved for Dr. Foresman at 192 Genesee St. that showed Juniper planting along the eastern vinyl fence. Since we believe the fence creates enough of a buffer, can the requirement for the trees be removed?
John Breanick – sees no problem with it. So moved. Seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair – next meeting is July 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Motion for adjournment made by John Breanick, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
| 
