City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, July 5, 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 June 14, 2005
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of June 14, 2005. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Public Hearing for Preliminary Site Plan Review 171 Grant Ave for car wash.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Timothy Buhl, Engineer – project involves using an existing commercial site of 0.87 acres. The existing building will be demolished except for the foundation and a new 3000 SF building erected with 4 car wash bays. Existing set backs will be maintained or improved. We will modify the existing curb cut for more efficiency and are working with DOT to accomplish this. Trying to maintain existing drainage patterns. Sheet drainage, no catch basins or pipe conduits to Hunter Brook. The size of the lot falls below the threshold to require a drainage plan (a SPEDES report under DEC). The property is already disturbed. There will be only a minor difference in uses.
Chair invites the public to comment. There are none. Chair invites the Board to comment.
Sam Giangreco – concerned with the drop off between this site and Cameron’s next door and questions the demolition of the building.
Timothy Buhl – we will keep the foundation and pads of the existing building. There is a small curb retaining wall at the drop off that has been there. We are maintaining the grade as is.
John Rogalski – states the traffic situation here is congested.
Laurie Michelman – has the same concerns, especially with left turns in and out which is currently difficult to do. Questions the discussion with DOT.
Steve Lynch – we have spoken with Mark Murphy, APD & DOT concerning this access. DOT has the plans under review. Officer Weed re-emphasized his concerns of the left turns. We are waiting to see what DOT says.
Timothy Buhl – we are not near an intersection and there are center-turning lanes on Grant Ave. This is an existing situation so there is not as much concern. And we need to get a (highway work) permit from them 1st.
Sam Giangreco – How much existing rear buffer is there?
Timothy Buhl – about 35 feet. We need to have 50 feet per ordinance.
Sam Giangreco – concerned that those in the residential area will hear the machines being run.
Timothy Buhl – thinks the buffering is adequate.
Laurie Michelman – asks for further discussion of the drainage.
Timothy Buhl – right now there is 5000 SF with pavement and the property sheet drains. Anything inside the building will be pipe drained through the sanitary sewer system. Water on the building or pavement will drain as is. We will maintain the grass strip to act as a filter on the way to Hunter Brook. The amount of water release should not increase; it is not an open site.
Laurie Michelman – how can you guarantee use in the self-serve bays will not run to the creek?
Timothy Buhl – inside all 4 bays the floor will slope to the center to catch all wash water, etc. This will go into the catch basins, through the separator to the sewer systems. All detergents used will be biodegradable.
John Breanick – questions the snow storage.
Timothy Buhl – it’s on the site plan on the grass strips west & north.
John Breanick – will this be adequate?
Timothy Buhl – it should be, will depend on the snowfall for the year.
John Breanick – questions the run off from snow storage.
Timothy Buhl – same as rain run off.
John Breanick – snow will be in an unpaved area?
Timothy Buhl – yes
John Breanick – how deep is the area?
Timothy Buhl – 10 – 15 feet.
Sam Giangreco – questions what type of sign will be used.
Timothy Buhl – pylon sign
Mark Murphy – an illuminated pylon sign
Sam Giangreco – any word from the Briseno’s?
Mark Murphy – no
Nicki Wright – will it be operated 24 hours?
Mark Murphy – yes
John Rogalski – is the drop off anything to worry about?
Steve Lynch – it already exists.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – Design Review Committee had reviewed the original plans and required some minor changes including the curb cut modification. The Board has just discussed all the major issues identified by the DRC, primarily traffic and drainage. Acknowledge that drainage will not increase in total volume off site. Gray water will be going into a closed system with separators / filters. ADP and the DRC were concerned with increase in traffic on site and access / egress at Grant Avenue. Staff and the project engineers are working with City Engineer Bill Lupien concerning drainage issues. Staff recommends preliminary approval, it’s a permitted use and the overall plan is adequate with regard to layout, function and zoning. SEQR is not required at this time and will be brought in with
the final plans. The DRC also recommends preliminary approval at this time.
Laurie Michelman – do we need a statement from the owner?
Steve Lynch – We will confirm ownership and if we need a notarized statement from the owner giving permission to proceed through site plan review.
Chair – asks for a motion on preliminary site plan. Motion for approval made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review 43 Perrine St. health club.
Owner invites the owner or agent to speak.
Anthony Tardibone, Turnpike Rd. – There is currently a 6-bay garage on the site that will be renovated into a membership health club.
Chair invites the public to comment.
Sandy Reed, Pulaski St. – wants to see the diagram (she is provided a copy of the plan to review).
There being no other public comment, the Chair closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
Mark DiVietro – asks for hours of operation.
Tony Tardibone – 24 hours.
Mark DiVietro – will the members have keys or will there be someone on staff there?
Tony Tardibone – There will be a part time worker there.
Mark DiVietro – and it’s members only?
Tony Tardibone – yes
Sam Giangreco – are there any tanks in the ground?
Tony Tardibone – it has passed environmental review.
Laurie Michelman – there will be 1 part time worker? Only 1 employee?
Tony Tardibone – 3 – 4 PT workers 10 –12 hours a day.
Nicki Wright – is it strictly free-weights?
Tony Tardibone – it will be like a regular health club with machines & free weights similar to Leader’s.
Sandy Reed (public) – questions what will be done at the rear of the property, as that is right outside her kitchen.
Steve Lynch – that portion of the property is mostly residentially zoned. It must be kept clean & weed free. It cannot be used for anything commercial.
John Breanick – you are the current owner?
Tony Tardibone – yes.
Mark DiVietro – what is the parking situation with the bars there on the weekends.
Tony Tardibone – if it interferes I can pass out parking passes for members.
John Rogalski – this is similar to the one (gym) that was at Pulaski and State?
Tony Tardibone – gyms are pretty much the same.
Laurie Michelman – will there be any changes to the exterior?
Tony Tardibone – yes, to make it look less like a garage.
Nicki Wright – how much space between buildings?
Tony Tardibone – about 4 feet
Sandy Reed (public) – states her property butts the garage. Asks what will be done with the windows at the back?
Tony Tardibone – will keep them as they are.
Sandy Reed – fine, you can’t see clearly through them.
Mark DiVietro – if this is approved what time frame are you looking at?
Tony Tardibone – by September.
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this was originally designed as a bar & gym and went to the ZBA for a buffer variances. At the ZBA meeting, the applicant revised his plans and decided to use the property for a health club only. He was awarded a 56’ rear yard buffer and a 46’ west side yard buffer resulting in a 4’ landscape buffer in the back and 14 feet on the side to use as a landscape buffer zone. The applicant also sought an area variance from the required 4’ minimum landscape buffer along the east property line, which the ZBA denied.
The DRC finished its review on 6/26/05 a day after the ZBA meeting. Some revisions were recommended to Mr. Tardibone, some of which are on the plans shown tonight. On the east side next to Teddy’s (Bar) is an 8’ R-O-W, so parking had to be shifted over. The 20’ lane created may not be large enough – there is room to revise this to a 24’ aisle. The DRC recommends, and the Zoning Ordinance requires some screening along the west side where the 14’ wide snow storage is noted on the plans – on the plan this would only be black top – for the remaining buffer zone, some type of vegetation is required there. Needs to work out with Mr. Barski some type of buffer behind the 8’ R-O-W. Also needs to screen this use from residential area,
didn’t want to say a fence should be there. It will be up to the Board what should be installed. 5’ landscaping is required in the front and installation of a sidewalk, tree lawn and curbing at the street.
Tony Tardibone – that would leave this area the only one with a sidewalk which may cause problems.
Steve Lynch – not only the sidewalk but the tree lawn must be restored and curbing. This would also cause a minor loss of parking, but existing parking there does impede the pedestrian traffic forcing pedestrians to walk out into the roadway. When someone changes the use of a parcel it falls on that person to comply with the regulations and in that way neighborhood is improved. In this case, the driveway will be reduced and the back parcel cleaned up. There needs to be some buffer in the 14’ area on the west – some sort of planting/screening. The use is changing, it’s a good use, but the neighborhood still needs to be protected. Again, we didn’t see the new plan until tonight. We will need feedback from the Board and come back to it.
Laurie Michelman – understands the concern with the sidewalk being an expense to a small business owner. Maybe we can look at it after the business has been established in about 1 year.
Sam Giangreco – can we require the other businesses to install walks?
Steve Lynch – if Mr. Tardibone has to install the sidewalk, it puts the City in the position to review and bring the neighborhood surrounding it into compliance. We can’t go full route (meaning tree lawns and curbing) unless there is a change in use. We can try to bring the sidewalks in the area up to Code through the sidewalk ordinance via the Engineering Office.
Sam Giangreco – it’s not only a safety issue but it is enhancing the area.
John Breanick – agrees with the Chair. 70-80’ would be very expensive starting out. Cost is not automatically borne; give time to get coordinated.
Steve Lynch – appreciates the concern but often times when someone is given time it doesn’t get done and then it becomes a Codes issue to enforce after the use is in place and operating. When made as a requirement for the C/O to open the business, the required work gets done.
John Breanick – get together a proposal and look at CDBG funding for next year.
Nancy Hussey – this can’t tie in to CDBG funding as it takes certain criteria to qualify. The project must comply with Code to get a CO. Resolution could require a performance bond to be done within a set time limit.
If it isn’t done then, the City can do it with the bond. Other property owners can be sent a letter by Engineering demanding sidewalks be brought to Code.
John Breanick – this needs a coordinated effort.
Nancy Hussey – it is up to Engineering to determine where the sidewalk goes and that is not within the pervue of this Board by any means.
John Breanick – the sidewalks and curbs should be coordinated.
Brian Hicks – the parking, macadam, sidewalks, etc. are all under scrutiny at this time by the powers-that-be.
Steve Lynch – Under a discussion with the involved Department Heads, it was strongly recommended that installation of the sidewalk, tree lawns and curbing be required as part of the development. It is unfortunate for Mr. Tardibone that he is the first in this area to change the use and have to bring the property up to code, but the requirement and recommendation remains.
Laurie Michelman – if we consider allowing additional time and a performance bond it will eliminate the possibility of codes issues with enforcement after a C/O.
Steve Lynch – For a performance bond, Engineering will calculate the cost plus an additional percent for administration; that will be between Engineering, Corporation Counsel and Mr. Tardibone.
Nancy Hussey – we can also afford Mr. Tardibone finance options.
Laurie Michelman – is the board comfortable with allowing Mr. Tardibone time and protecting the City?
Mark DiVietro – what time frame?
Nancy Hussey – it’s up to the Board.
John Breanick – 2 years.
Laurie Michelman – that’s too long, 12 – 18 months.
Nancy Hussey – we don’t want it too drawn out.
John Breanick – if he’s beginning in September he would want 2 summer sessions to get it done.
Tony Tardibone – doesn’t see how putting in a sidewalk would do anything, there are no conjoining walks
Laurie Michelman – we can continue discussion
Steve Lynch – cost would be about $2,100.00.
Laurie Michelman – any comments concerning fencing/buffers in the snow storage area on the west side?
Steve Lynch – points out the area on the aerial view.
Laurie Michelman – wants to see some separation of cars, something to stop cars from going through one property to the next.
John Breanick – a solid fence would serve the purpose as did Camardo’s on Wall St.
Steve Lynch – and then maintain snow storage.
Laurie Michelman – is everyone comfortable with that?
Sam Giangreco – Mark Wrobel owns the apartments next door, was he ever approached about the sidewalks?
Brian Hicks – he has sidewalks there but they are in disrepair, ordinance maintains for upkeep.
Laurie Michelman – the Board needs to make a decision for a motion to table to allow Mr. Tardibone to work further on the site plan.
John Breanick – questions installing a fence from Swifty’s to the garage (on the West side).
Steve Lynch – it would make sense. Also, we did not discuss separation between the back and other properties. Suggests that the building acts as its own buffer.
Tony Tardibone – it is all overgrown there.
Sandy Reed (public) – tried to cut it down once, but couldn’t.
Steve Lynch – concern that a fence would make maintenance difficult.
Sandy Reed – the area is already caged in.
Tony Tardibone – there is a fence across the back of the building.
Steve Lynch – also a buffer between the back of Teddy’s along the property line.
Laurie Michelman – questions addition fence on the east side of the property. Doesn’t see a need for it.
Brian Hicks – these concerns were voiced at the ZBA meeting.
Mark DiVietro – did Mr. Barski have any concerns about the buffering.
Brian Hicks – didn’t seem to.
Laurie Michelman – on the west side also a requirement for some type of planting. There is no choice there – it is part of the zoning requirement.
John Breanick – a fence with some low level bushes?
Mark DiVietro – ok there but doesn’t see any reason to on the east side. Also, 18 months at most on the sidewalks.
Laurie Michelman – yes, maybe some plants on the east side but not a fence.
John Breanick – can we do a preliminary?
Steve Lynch – yes but it wouldn’t be any difference in the timing of the application review for Mr. Tardibone. Recommend holding off on approval at this time, and following up with Mr. Tardibone on development of final plans.
Tony Tardibone – would like to get started, didn’t know there would be any problems.
Chair – asks for a motion to table until next month. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Home Occupation 3 Fort St. limousine service
Brian Hicks – he (Donald Patch, the applicant) was told what he needed. He may not be in the City. We have not heard back from him.
Laurie Michelman – is he the owner?
Brian Hicks – he has purchased the property.
Steve Lynch – parcel is located on the west side of Fort St., behind the Carr Bldg. on Genesee St. It is in a special commercial zone. The C-5 allows for office, but not the limo service. Since he will live there, it will be a home occupation through a special permit, but outside storage of limos will not be allowed. That would require a use variance.
Nicki Wright – questions the off street parking.
Laurie Michelman – it has a long drive way. Asks for a motion to table. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Laurie Michelman – next meeting is August 2, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. Any other matters?
John Breanick – questions the Nicpon matter.
Steve Lynch – it will be brought before the board at another time – likely to be ready in August. He needs a Use Variance for expansion first (and a number of Area Variances). He is in an R1 district and wants to being the building into ADA compliance through the expansion. As I mentioned, he will also need a number of Area Variances. We have only received a plan view without any elevations to show the design of the expansion. The plan looks as though the front has been squared off, which would impact the look if the expansion were designed in a commercial style. The impact on the surrounding neighborhood character needs to be considered.
Chair asks for a motion for adjournment. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
| 
