City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: John Rogalski, Mark DiVietro, Laurie Michelman, Sandra Craner Absent: Nicki Wright, John Breanick, Sam Giangreco
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Stephen Selvek, Planner; 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 July 5, 2005
Chair states there is no quorum to approve the minutes of July 5, 2005 and adjourns the minutes until the next meeting.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review 171 Grant Ave car wash.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Timothy Buhl, Engineer – some changes have been made to the site plan. Letter has been received from DOT (distributes letter). DOT accepts the concept of the entrance with a few exceptions. DOT wants a 30’ width entrance vs. the 36’ as noted on the plan. They also want the large deciduous trees removed from the NYS ROW, which we have done and replaced with the same number of plant units (as shrubs). We have met with the City Engineer and reviewed the plan with him. We have implemented everything the City has asked for. We are still pushing for the 36’ entrance width. We have received the necessary variances for buffers from the ZBA.
Chair invites the public to comment. There are none and closes the Public Hearing. Chair invites the Board to comment.
Mark DiVietro – clarifies that the entrance drive will be 30’
Laurie Michelman – that is what DOT wants. Reads the letter from DOT into the record.
John Rogalski – worried about the ingress & egress, traffic congestion in this area and noise to the residents behind the property.
Steve Lynch – concerning the buffer, there is heavy buffering in the rear with trees, shrubs, a ravine and stream with buffering on the far side. Also, the apartments at Standart Woods are set back from the edge of this landscape buffer. There is already a use here on Grant Avenue, and this new use will not significantly increase the noise level, notwithstanding the existing landscape buffer. With regard to traffic issues. I encouraged the APD to coordinate the traffic review with the applicant and the NYSDOT. I called Tom Weed late last week and spoke to him about the project. He indicated that he and the Police Chief had spoken with the DOT and that the APD acknowledges that DOT has jurisdiction over Grant Avenue. He understood that DOT’s saw no significant conflict with traffic, although the APD
does have some concerns. He stated that the APD would not contradict the DOT’s review and determination on traffic in this particular case. Please note that there is also a turn lane in the middle of Grant Ave in front of this property that provides some refuge for vehicles entering and exiting the site. In addition, the egress lane has been reduced to a single exit, so there will only be one car leaving the site onto Grant Ave at a time. Keep in mind that the surrounding businesses do not have ingress/egress restrictions.
Mark DiVietro – questions the vacuums
Tim Buhl – they will be at the rear of the site
Mark DiVietro – questions the building structure
Marc Murphy – masonry with asphalt roof and brick type siding.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – already commented on traffic and buffering. All else is standard design review criteria. Required variances from the ZBA have been approved. We have an email (provided) from the City Engineer approving the drainage as long as the wooded buffer remains – please note that there are construction notes on the site plan that require that the buffers remain. There is a letter from DOT requesting the reduction of the entrance drive from 36’ to 30’. The DRC has reviewed this project and recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR.
Mark DiVietro – asks question concerning the doors on the touchless car bay
Marc Murphy – there will be doors on both sides that will remain open in the summer and closed in the winter
Mark DiVietro – will they be closed at night?
Marc Murphy – no, it will be seasonal
Tim Buhl – can that be changed if there are complaints?
Marc Murphy – yes
Motion for negative declaration on SEQR made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Mark DiVietro.
John Rogalski – abstains.
Laurie Michelman – why?
John Rogalski – still worried about traffic issues
Steve Lynch – suggests holding off on vote then as 3 members are absent and a vote of approval would be needed by all members present. If the votes weren’t there it would be preferable to wait for a full board to consider the project
Tim Buhl – his concerns were what (referring to Mr. Rogalski)?
Laurie Michelman – traffic
Steve Lynch – you can vote to withdraw the motion
Mark DiVietro – so moved
John Rogalski – so APD is not concerned with traffic issues?
Steve Lynch – Tom Weed stated they will go with the jurisdiction of DOT in this matter
Tim Buhl – we spent an hour reviewing the access with DOT. The original plans were to have 2 points of egress and that was a cause for concern with them. They are happy with the plans as they are now except for the width.
John Rogalski – then I will go along with it if APD ok’s it, but I am still worried about it.
Laurie Michelman – asks for renewal of motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Laurie Michelman – moving on to the site plan resolution with the provision that the entrance is 30’ wide and any other requests by DOT as stated in the letter.
Mark DiVietro- should noise become a factor concerning the touchless bay can it be added to the resolution or would it be a codes issue?
Steve Lynch – it could be in the resolution that the doors are shut at night.
Tim Buhl – if there are complaints.
Laurie Michelman – no, that would be too hard to monitor, it should be in the resolution that the doors will be closed at night.
Marc Murphy – the equipment is not really that noisy especially on Grant Ave.
Tim Buhl – close just the rear door facing the residential area – letting any noise filter out to the front at Grant Avenue.
Laurie Michelman – would that satisfy the board? (yes)
Tim Buhl – the driveway width the DOT based on current drawings but if new drawings are satisfactory to the DOT with a 36’ width, we would like the resolution to state the width may be between 30’ – 36’, based on DOT approval.
Laurie Michelman – the rear door will be closed from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., year- round. Asks for a motion to approve the site plan with the aforementioned provisions. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review 43 Perrine St. health club.
Chair invites the owner or agent to speak.
Anthony Tardibone – submitted new plan with required buffers noted.
Laurie Michelman asks Sandra Craner if she’s familiar with the plan as she was absent from the last meeting.
Sandra Craner – has reviewed it
Chair asks the public for any comments. There are none. Closes the Public Hearing and asks the Board for comments. There are none. Moves on to staff comments.
Steve Lynch – there are 2 site plans available. The first, submitted by Anthony Tardibone, has most of the things asked for but not all; and there’s a second plan, prepared by staff, that includes the required items that were incorporated into Mr. Tardibone’s submission. The changes includes revisions to the parking spaces, they have been resized from 20’ long to the standard 18.5’, to allow for a 24’ wide center drive aisle, as the 20’ aisle on Mr. Tardibone’s plan was too narrow to allow cars to back out safely. We’ve also identified the types of plant units to be used, although Mr. Tardibone may substitute different species as long as the general types and sizes are adhered to. The area in the rear that is shaded is in a residential district
and has been noted for no commercial activity being allowed. Also added required planting on the east side next to Teddy’s Bar and concrete wheel stops within the parking lot to protect the adjacent buildings and right-of-way easement, as required by Code. All else is the same as Mr. Tardibone’s plan. With that staff recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan.
Anthony Tardibone – the curbs and curb stops will increase my cost. Questions the buffer on the east side as there is an open lot there that can serve as a buffer. People are going to park anywhere anyway.
Steve Lynch – the curbs were included on your site plan that you submitted – we require them but did not add them. In any case, they will eliminate parking on the tree lawn between the sidewalk and curb. There are things required on your plan that you did not put there so staff added them so that we would have a plan that met code requirements and that staff could recommend for approval to the Board.
Laurie Michelman – if I recall from the last meeting we agreed that a buffer on the east side next to Teddy’s was not needed. Are the curb stops within the pervue of this Board?
Steve Lynch – they are required by Code.
Laurie Michelman – but do we have the ability to set that requirement aside.
Anthony Tardibone – would rather have a full Board if there is any question of the resolution passing. I keep submitting plans that keep being added to. Curb stops will get in the way of plowing.
Laurie Michelman – what are the dangers of not having the curb stops?
Steve Lynch – potential safety issues of people backing cars into the buildings immediately next to the parking spaces, plus, without any type of curb stop, the cars will simply park within the 8’ ROW easement on the east side of the property along Teddy’s Bar.
Laurie Michelman – would it be more economical to do a small hedgerow?
Steve Lynch – thinks it would be more expensive. Reason for the curb stops is to protect the buildings and
R-O-W.
Laurie Michelman – possible to require the stops to protect the R-O-W only? Concerns that the expense is too great for a small business.
John Rogalski – gives Mr. Tardibone credit for trying to do something with the area. Will need to be well patrolled though.
Anthony Tardibone – doesn’t think anything will last as drunks will park wherever and vandalize. Willing to give a little but each time something is added to the plans.
Steve Lynch- staff shows what is required and it’s up to the Board whether or not to be lenient on some items where they have discretion.
Laurie Michelman – when is the planned start of the project? Might be beneficial to look into the expenses involved of the requirements before any votes are taken and bring back to the Board for discussion. We’ve already discussed a grace period to get the business up & running.
Mark DiVietro – agrees, some things do belong. Other businesses will be required to bring properties into Code as time goes on and they are worked on.
Laurie Michelman – asks for a motion to table until the next meeting. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by John Rogalski. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review 235 State St. Funeral Home Expansion.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Michael Nicpon – requesting to replace the existing front porch with an enclosed structure to house a handicapped ramp and bathroom per ADA specs.
Chair asks the public for comments. There are none. Closes the Public Hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Laurie Michelman – questions the easement between the funeral home and the property to the north (237 State Street). (a letter regarding intent to create easement is distributed) Reads letter into record. Both properties are owned by the same person right now. An easement on the survey map will allay any problems in the future if one parcel is sold.
John Rogalski – is happy with the plan. It will help with the overcrowding.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – the property needed, and received, 2 area variances and 1 use variance. ZBA has asked that the Planning Board review the issue of the character of the building. A commercial storefront is not being added. Instead it will be a nicely designed residential type façade that fits within the residential character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Laurie Michelman – there are 2 copies of the site plan resolution, 1 with an exhibit A and 1 without.
Steve Lynch – doesn’t believe exhibit A is needed as the easement has been addressed.
Laurie Michelman – leave in exhibit A as is; we do not have confirmation that the easement is done, just the order for one. Asks for a motion to approve the site plan with Exhibit A. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 5: Public Hearing for Special Permit 3 Fort St. Home Occupation Limousine Service
Steve Lynch – this is the second time this item has been placed on the agenda and the applicant has not shown. Suggests the Board vote to withdraw the application and require the applicant to re-apply including an additional fee.
Chair asks for a motion for reapplication with the additional fee. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Other Matters
Steve Lynch – we have a sketch plan review of Clark Ridge – a proposed subdivision on Clark St.
David Simmons GMAC Realtors out of Syracuse, acting as developer: This is a 17-acre parcel. Proposing a zone change for apartments on the rear of the parcel and 45 single-family homes at the front. At one time I believe this parcel had preliminary approval for 50 homes. Have had some reservations and been looking at it for a couple years. Open to suggestions. They are narrow lots but within Code. Had considered putting apartments in the front to transition from a commercial area but felt homeowners wouldn’t want to drive past them.
Laurie Michelman – we have had applicants submit projects and do them in stages.
Steve Lynch – with regard to the subdivision, they can be done in stages but they should be reviewed as a whole. The entire parcel is looked at to know what the entire development will end up at. The applicant is proposing a zone change. DRC has reviewed and offers the following
· Zone change – this is an R1 zone. Some parcels on Belmont Ave (next to it) are R2. I would caution you that R2 does not allow 8 unit apartment buildings, only 6 units per building. Also, a neighborhood density analysis and yard and area requirements would need to be reviewed even for an R2.
· Any zone changes requested would need to be presented to City Council for final approval. More importantly though is the fact that this particular zone change could border on spot zoning. To be upheld if there is opposition, the change would have to conform to the purposes and scope of the Comprehensive Plan. A rationale supporting the zone change would have to be identified that is above and beyond the needs of the applicant. The zone next to it is R2 so this could be approached as an expansion of that R2 zone – but the overall rationale for doing so would have to be made in consideration and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
· As the project concept is designed there is one single access from Clark Street, running the entire length of the project, for the entire single-family housing development. There are fire and safety issues with this single access design and the APD and AFD were concerned during the sketch plan review and found this layout unacceptable; they would support and would like to see a through street connecting to Belmont Ave at the end.
· By the City subdivision code, a cul-de-sac cannot exceed 600’ in length. Without the through street this is a large cul-de-sac that significantly exceeds the allowed length – the through street would resolve this issue.
· Grading and drainage will need to be addressed – there is not enough information on the sketch plan to really comment on it at this point.
· A 60’ R-O-W will make the road narrow and this may be an issue with emergency responders, although planning staff favors narrower residential streets.
This is an excellent piece of property for a subdivision though the requested zone change does give pause.
David Simmons – did not realize it would be considered spot zoning. Is looking for preliminary approval for the site then final approval in stages.
Steve Lynch – if this is done without sensitivity to the Comprehensive Plan is could be seen as spot zoning. Personally cannot see the need for additional apartments within the City unless they are upscale – something that is in shorter supply on the market.
Steve Selvek – a minor point, Primrose Lane is already being used as a City street name. Also, the footprints of the buildings will actually be 50% larger than what is now shown as the applicant indicated these would be single story ranches.
Steve Lynch – to move forward the zoning issue will need to be addressed first. Request for a zoning change should come, from the owner/applicant to this Board for consideration, and then the Board’s recommendation is forwarded to City Council for review and action. Zone changes are not done lightly and we are sensitive to the issue of spot zoning. If the need is defined to expand the R2 zone then it can be considered.
OTHER BUSINESS
Steve Lynch – it happens occasionally that the Board considers a requirement that might be costly to the applicant and becomes more lenient in that requirement. Just wants to caution the Board to be sensitive to the fact that we are trying to improve the City & to be judicious in waiving requirements because of cost alone. We need to focus on the property and it’s setting and impact on the surrounding neighborhood and not focus on the individual applicant.
Laurie Michelman – agreed, but, unfortunately, people are being turned off to bringing business here and we need to look at it differently. There may be no need to make any changes but we need to be more fully informed.
Steve Selvek – from personal experience when looking at a subdivision the applicant is told that curbs and sidewalks are required to be installed. This cost may be passed on to the homeowner which is a significant additional cost. Businesses new to the area should be expected to be brought to the same level the homeowners are.
Chair confirms the next meeting for September 6, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. and asks for a motion for adjournment. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
| 
