City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, February 7, 2006 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: John Breanick, Mark DiVietro, Anthony Bartolotta, Laurie Michelman. Absent and Excused: Sam Giangreco, Jill Fudo, John Rogalski.
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 for December 13, 2005.
The Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2005. Motion made by John Breanick, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: Land Use/Zoning Discussion
Steve Lynch – reads into record meeting agenda outline memo. Regarding Professional and Business Office Uses in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District: It may seem, if the definition of consumer service use is read broadly, that business and/or professional office uses are permitted in the C-1 Neighborhood Zone, but if we go to the specific definition of business offices and professional offices found in the ordinance, the definitions for these land uses would actually preclude them from being permitted uses in the C-1 Zone.
The issue to consider is that in the C1 district there are any number of offices or businesses that exist already, there are also a number of vacant storefronts and other vacant buildings within the C1 zones, that might be put to more productive use if they were allowed the expanded use category of business and/or professional offices. We are not including medical office uses within this discussion because there is typically a greater consumer volume and turnover associated with medical offices and therefore parking issues need to be considered as an impact within the zone. If the Board would like to explore medical uses within the C-1 zone, we could entertain that as well. So I want to put that in front of the Board to start thinking about. On the west end and other C1 zoning areas of the City, the expansion of permitted uses
may help those districts economically and might help the owners of underutilized parcels market their properties. If we do adopt changes and fully inform the real estate community so they know this expansion of permitted uses has occurred, it may spur some opportunities for area redevelopment. That was the first item I wanted to discuss.
(Steve Selvek points out the C1 areas on the zoning map.) Discusses some businesses in west end. Only constraint is the impact of parking. Steve Lynch notes that in the C-2 District in downtown that there is limited parking as well, with no required parking. Explains that the Board members have a good handle on where the C1 zoning areas are. If the Board were to propose this change in permitted uses, it would require a Public Hearing. The matter would come to this Board where we would prepare the ordinance text to be changed, which would just involve an expansion of uses listed as permitted within the zone.
John Breanick – questions re-evaluation of land use in the City. Last time done was in the early 90’s.
Steve Lynch – as far a looking at an entire City, it’s not typical that established communities like Auburn would revise their entire land use plan at one time. When comprehensive land uses are established within the City, it’s usually a question of adjusting these existing land uses in ways that protect, and that’s part of our job here, existing uses and existing property values etc., while allowing the flexibility we need to encourage productive economic development to occur. When there are comprehensive and fully developed land use patterns within a City, adjustment of the land use plan is accomplished deliberately and strategically by looking at specific areas and tying the change to the Comprehensive Plan and overall public benefit.
Laurie Michelman – once a year we look at that through this Board in April.
Steve Lynch – I’m not disagreeing at all with the goal expressed by Mr. Breanick, however I would like to channel that effort into the idea it’s not a wholesale revision of the zoning and land use patterns within the City. We’re going to look at specific areas to see what we can do to have that flexibility we are seeking that allows up to promote development while protecting established uses and property values. Part of that discussion is what’s being brought to the floor tonight - one is a simple thing, expanding allowed uses in a C1 and I’d like to get some feedback from the members here tonight on that issue.
Mark DiVietro – some C1 areas are transitional areas and are growing into the surrounding neighborhood.
Steve Lynch - Sometimes transitional areas or areas where because of the lot, the buildings involved or the surrounding area uses, you might want to encourage the use, but you can’t do anything with the zoning underneath. We are going to propose a method of allowing that flexibility without wholly changing the range of uses that can go there. This is the concept behind the PDD overlay district.
Laurie Michelman – has concern with Wall St. area. That seems to be the most residential area of all the C1 areas that have been mentioned.
Steve Lynch – you are concerned with the idea that someone can come in & put up a business office & take down a residence and the impact this may have.
Laurie Michelman – right. That would be my only area of concern.
Steve Lynch – the 1992 rezone changed most of this (Wall St.) area to R2 and a group of business & property owners in the area petitioned that it would be more appropriately zoned C1 & that was eventually amended by Council. That happened in ’93 or ’94. Between State & Cross St. is almost all commercial, along with the stretch from Cross St. to Washington St., with the exception of 4 or 5 homes. If the change were made to all C1, what would regulate it would be site plan review procedures & market forces. The question to ask is whether site plan review procedures are adequate enough to protect the residential neighborhood on Van Anden St. from redevelopment along Wall St.
Laurie Michelman – along Genesee St. you can see the advantage of expansion but along an area like here (Wall Street) where it can be considered an enclosed neighborhood area that wouldn’t be open like Genesee St. Recognizing it’s already zoned C1 maybe this proposal would bring in more suitable businesses.
Anthony Bartolotta – would this be approved on a case-by-case, neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis or is it a blanket coverage?
Steve Lynch – if we add to the uses permitted in C1 then they would be new permitted uses allowed in those areas we’ve discussed.
Laurie Michelman – we would be recommending to City Council a change in the Zoning Ordinance to include these uses. So if another area were rezoned to be C1 it would also be covered under these changes.
Steve Lynch – Would the Board members here want this matter pursued at a subsequent meeting? We are missing three members tonight, and I would like the full consensus of the Board on these potential changes.
Laurie Michelman – I think it should be discussed further.
Steve Lynch – any proposals we have would require a public hearing and then presentation to Council.
Next we will discuss Planned Development Districts. Reads from Meeting Agenda pg 2(b)(i). These are the guidelines that would need to be adhered to. The changes may seem complex, but I’m just trying to lay the process out for the Board. This type of zoning change is not something the Board could, or should do, in 1 or 2 meetings; it would be done as part of our ongoing work over a couple months. As I’ve been researching these codes and other communities that have put these codes in place, I have found that developers want to go there for development, as there is some guarantee that once it the PDD district starts being implemented that the building next to theirs will have the same requirements for development or redevelopment. This provides assurance to the investor that a quality building will
complement their development and investment. Once this process unfolds, the community will start to get more of what they want and what other developers are looking for. These are the type of guidelines you would develop. You may develop different guidelines for different areas of the City you want to address.
Laurie Michelman – I’d just like to suggest that as we go forward with this we set up a time for the Board as a whole to visit these potential PDD sites being discussed.
Steve Lynch – that is an excellent idea, as the Board will learn much more from walking around the site & the surrounding area than from an aerial view photograph or other analysis.
(Discussion of the different areas and proposed uses)
Chair – Next meeting March 7, 2006 at 6:30 pm. Asks for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Mark DiVietro, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Meeting adjourned.
| 
