City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Sam Giangreco, Mark DiVietro, Anthony Bartolotta, Laurie Michelman, Jill Fudo, John Breanick
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Tom Weed, APD; Nancy Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes for November 8, 2006
Chair asks for a motion to accept the minutes November 8, 2006. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 36 York St. Construction of 2,700 SF Building, automotive repair shop together with site improvements.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Peter Petrosino – is here to seek approval to finish the project as previously presented.
Richard Edmund of Morton Buildings – storm water management plans and other items not clear previously have been submitted. The storm water that comes down York St. is a major problem that also needs to be addressed.
Chair asks for comments from the public. There being none closes the public hearing and asks for comments from the Board. There being none asks for staff comments.
Stephen Selvek - as previously mentioned, Phase I was given a conditional approval and was required to come back for Phase II with storm water drainage plan, build out and other required items. The revised plan includes comments from the Design Review Committee and appear to meet code. The drainage plan has been approved by Engineering. DRC recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the Site Plan as submitted.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion for approval of the site plan as submitted. Motion made by Anthony Bartolotta, seconded by Sam Giangreco. All members vote approval with Laurie Michelman abstaining. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Site Plan for 27-35 Clark St. Construction of 35-vehicle asphalt parking lot adjacent to St. Mary Church.
Chair invites the owner or agent to speak.
Mike O’Neil, American Group I, representing St. Mary’s – the proposal is to pave the existing parking lot to improve the site along with some landscaping. St. Mary’s is buying some property from the City. Sees need for additional landscaping closer to Green St. There are a couple architectural streetlights on Green St. Would like a couple more near the lot. There will be 35 spaces paved and striped and curving. Grading and drainage to be provided. The existing building has been demolished and we would be adding paving to this area. We would like to not add too many trees because of the crows. Points out areas on map. Would like to address sidewalks at some future point.
Chair invites comments from the public. There being none invites the Board to comment.
John Breanick – is there any provision for handicapped parking?
Mike O’Neil – not at this time. We will add what is required by Code plus 1.
Stephen Selvek – as the Board may be aware, the City has a resolution to transfer the property following site plan approval. Design Review Committee met to review the plans. A complete grading and drainage plan is required including topography. There is a net increase of impervious surface area as the gravel is being paved. It will be visually screened from rights-of-way and adjacent properties. The Board can consider alternatives in lieu of plant units due to constraints. DRC has asked for type and height of lighting, snow storage considerations and details of site improvements. DRC recommends tabling until these items are provided.
Jill Fudo – questions the improvement line along Green St. and the Code.
Steve Selvek – concrete walk required. The property will be transferred.
John Breanick – any way to resolve this tonight?
Steve Selvek – no, Engineering has requested a complete grading and drainage plan that was not provided. It would behoove the Board to wait for his approval.
John Breanick – questions the lighting.
Steve Selvek – it is up to the church to provide what is necessary. DRC will consider what is minimal and will also include the streetlights towards the light requirements.
John Breanick – there are no homes in the area?
Steve Selvek – correct
John Breanick – so no one will be affected
Steve Selvek – there is no direct affect to anyone. We will be keeping within the environmental directive to ensure no excessive light is where it is not needed.
Sam Giangreco – asks if the time line is ok.
Mike O’Neil – agrees with timeline.
Agenda Item 5: Site Plan Review for 10 Quarry Rd. Construction of 70’X240’ building to house new equipment and processes associated with business expansion.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Robert Marinella – currently used as a manufacturing plant for powder coating rebar and wish to expand.
Chair invites the public to comment.
Steve Lynch – the applicant is working with the County to affect a small purchase of land to help give him more room.
Robert Marinella – we received a property line area variance 12/4/06.
Chair closes the public hearing and invites the Board to comment.
John Breanick – questions the number of employees.
Robert Marinella – there are currently 15. Plan is to add 6-8 more
John Breanick – questions parking
Robert Marinella – it is adequate
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Selvek – this is a proposed 16,800SF building behind the existing building. It is in the industrial zone and is an approved use there. It is located 26 feet from the property line and received a 24-foot set back variance. Also, they are negotiating to add land which would make the variance moot. They need to supply a storm water drainage plan along with a complete and comprehensive site plan. They wish to begin in April 2007 and need 12 weeks advance to order equipment. DRC hopes to get complete plans for the January meeting.
Agenda Item 1: Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
Laurie Michelman – there were a few members not here last month for the CDBG presentation that this was a small part of. There were concerns that not enough notice was given for the Board or public. The project has been 5 years in the making, a lot of time for many people, and has been through many Council resolutions. Bids have not yet been approved. The Board does not have any legal pervue for any resolutions there will not be a formal vote except for recommendation.
Mike Long – thanks the Board. Has served as OPED staff for many years. OPED is the leading agency of the Comprehensive Plan of 1992. Downtown revitalization is seen as a major effort. Trying to take the project initially envisioned to be developed so everyone can agree on it. All agree something does need to be done. The City needs to make a commitment to downtown. Try to find a venue for community input. After the last vote OPED is trying to meet with more people to get more input. Some minor changes being made have been identified. Some things spoken about include:
· Inclusion of Exchange St. mall
· Most of the work is focused on Genesee St. with the main area being downtown
· Take other areas needing improvement as alternative bids
· Unit bids
· Change parking meters, include more parking downtown
· Move one fire hydrant
· Tree grates
· Cost, pledge of Federal Grant money for 20 years. Council felt uneasy about this, wished to scale back. BID is a great organization in promoting the project. Hope the BID can help with improvement. The city has cut many people but not staff to take care of.
Laurie Michelman – requests highlights of project
Doug Garver – point out on map. Intent is to figure out best how to spend money acquired. We’ve looked at focus areas such as Exchange St., Genesee St., North and South St. to improve the standard streetscape. Keep existing concrete, other areas dress up with new concrete or bricking. Carry out from State St. mall. Initially to improve from curb to first score line of sidewalk (about 4 feet). Include trees, benches, trash receptacles. Exchange St. is a different component – also a carry over from State St. Greenery to be more garden like atmosphere. Include furniture, lawn area, gathering space, brick and concrete paving. Maintenance – parking garage has snow removal. To keep easy, maintain through accesses. Also trees, benches and
trash receptacles.
Laurie Michelman – there is also a memo from Jennifer Haines of OPED outlining resolutions brought before Council in the past (reads memo).
Sandy Craner, Hamilton Ave, Executive Director of BID – one concern is there hasn’t been enough time for public input. Since 2002 we have sponsored over 12 public meeting for the Downtown project. Also, individual meeting have been offered for those unable to attend the public meetings. Updates are also available through our newsletter and website. Maintenance was also brought up, BID has a beautification crew whom we’ve spoken with about putting in 1 ½ hours more per week. This is not high maintenance. Also spoke about coming up with a contract with the City to keep the crew on. The BID is not concerned about trees and questions how much time they will require to maintain. Currently we have the flower pot program which would require increased funds if the area is increased. A revenue stream is needed between the BID and the City. It will cost but not as much as another employee. It is important for businesses to have improvements. We need to continue investment of recruiting
businesses.
Jon Robson, Auburn Document Center – Has been in business 12 years and has a large investment in downtown. Problems with Council, Mayors, graffiti, vandalism and increased parking has been detrimental to the investment. Input is there but Council refuses to vote. The brick may be harder to deal with but it’s a small price to bring in the rest of the improvements. Council needs to listen to the merchants. Downtown cannot thrive without businesses there. Commercial entrepreneurs are paying the wages.
Cary Eidel, Dadabbo’s Pizza & APT – thanks Jon for his passionate comments. Has been a resident of Auburn for 5 ½ years and has also made an investment in downtown. Community has helped build businesses. 5 – 10,000 people have already come through APT. Auburn is at a turning point. It has a wonderful past history that has gone down with the manufacturing leaving the area. Tourism has grown – hunting, fishing. Hopes to capitalize on the art community. Ideas are to have Finger Lakes Art Festival with the APT, Merry Go Round Theatre, museums and movie theater. Its’ a bit embarrassing to bring visitors through Auburn at this time. It’s time to be bold and take a chance. Auburn can be the center of Central New York. Enthusiasm
and momentum will bring more businesses.
Mary McLaughlin, CoCap Development – Grant Ave commercial corridor. Always supported development of downtown. At the last Council there was talk of developing Grant Ave but not downtown. This is uneven, both need to occur. According to BID study from Cornell there is a 12 county business district and Auburn is the heart and soul. 676 million dollars are leaking from the community. There is a lot of room for economic growth. Area fits perfectly in downtown to bring in clothing, food and miscellaneous retail. To attract it needs to be attractive. An example is Carousel Mall and Armory Sq. in Syracuse. It is easier to develop other projects if downtown develops. Encourages the Board to encourage Council to approve the project. Auburn is redefining itself from its
manufacturing roots.
Henry MacDonald – has a SCUBA business in Auburn run out of Dill St. office. People train in 11 different locations and come here to buy equipment, etc. If the project is not done people will not come. Merchants need to believe the City will work in concert not conflict.
Tim Lattimore – asks Jenny Haines to come forward. Questions what will happen to other programs if this project goes through.
Jenny Haines – per my memo the project is funded with a HUD 108 loan repaid through annual CDBG allocation funds that have already been set aside. There is a 210,000 pay back. CDBG program will decrease funding, also there is a bill to change the formula and potential cuts. Suggests moving forward with a scaled back program. It will be a 20-year program. Risk is needed to take balance betweens program and continue with helpful programs. We need to be bold and make the investment and still provide these services.
Tim Lattimore – has had a business in downtown and knows what it needs. Thinks people thought it would be done like State St. which is not true. Would rather work block by block rebuilding rather than just put a band-aid on it. Would rather put the money where it would be best utilized. Wants the best done – other programs have gone down due to poor investments.
David Dempsey – there are diverging opinions. Approves the project as presented. Has worked many years to put this together. Has listened to BID and the people. There are good people on both sides. Need to come to some compromise. We can’t control here what happens in Washington. It is not more important than downtown. We go as downtown goes. Votes in favor of the project.
Matt Smith – couple points – want to see a vibrant downtown also. Voted against the project. Not responsible for Council to approve. Spoke with OPED and some staff and they are not comfortable with it either. Knows what it’s like to own a business, it seems and uphill battle to maintain. Want to have the community backing up the merchants. Wants a beautiful downtown as the heartbeat of the City. Right now it looks terrible. Council is behind the business people. We need to come up with a plan that is economically responsible. There is not a comprehensive look to this plan. Ready and willing to sit down to do what is necessary for a comprehensive plan.
Tony Piccolo, BID member – 100% behind the project. It it’s not done it won’t happen. We’ve been waiting 3 decades. Appearance is everything. Need to move forward now. It’s been discussed for 5 years now and it’s time to act.
Chair – closed public hearing and asks Board for comments.
Sam Giangreco – we need a plan of action to get going. The Arterial needs signs pointing to downtown. Malls did take a toll but there is still valuable retail space downtown. There should be no more conversation.
Mike Long – the tentative schedule, come to conclusion of all revisions, award bids, would be next spring. BID is doing signs, this is very important. Reroute touring Rte 20 through downtown as it was with original bid. Include unit pricing – more flexibility.
Joe Devietro – market area not as popular at first but becoming more popular. Could put this into plan. There are many home businesses that would be happy to have spaces to show wares. Agencies receiving money from CDBG, without downtown seems pointless, CDBG is expanding to other communities making Auburn’s share small. Time to do this is now.
Sandy Craner – the farmer’s market does not want to move. Crafts have rules & regulations. We can’t change the way the market happens.
Laurie Michelman – with other programs be adversely affected.
Jenny Haines – over the past 4 years allocations that can’t be banked or reprogrammed are spent in other areas. Drawn some money from the 108 loan to pay design fees. Obligation is for a 20-year term. There is the potential that something could happen and that’s a concern. Conceivably other programs could be affected depending on different factors. It is in front of Congress now. It would be a good idea to have a Council resolution against the reformat sent in.
Laurie Michelman – reviewing some historical documentation, other funds are referenced.
Jenny Haines – NY mainstream project about 20,000 for bid
Laurie Michelman – Mike Long talked about OPED staff meeting with merchants.
Jenny Haines – to get a consensus of interests and priorities. Although there is no consensus, each merchant wants to start at their own space.
Anthony Bartolotta – a scale back would be defined as how?
Jenny Haines – I’ve not spoken personally with anyone. Have heard 1.2 million tossed around. Maybe feasible with unit pricing.
Laurie Michelman – estimation for bid?
Jenny Hanes – about 1.8 million. But with the reformat proposed the formula would change. This could potentially put Auburn in danger of losing its status as an entitlement community.
Laurie Michelman – explain long term financial benefits
Mike Long – a lot of investment in a community, the investors will make the most impact. Skaneateles also had a plan. Over time a significant amount of involvement was realized due to community reinvesting in itself. Not spending money on downtown will lose its momentum. Streetscape plan increases property values. A similar project was done on east hill, small steps taken by the City had a springboard effect in improving areas. Another issue, other sources of revenue – community renewal act. Banks are required to spend money in improvement projects. Looking for additional revenues. A recommendation from this Board would encourage Council.
Mary McLaughlin – Cornell study of 2005 states that 677 million dollar is leaking from the City. Auburn has wonderful programs being funded. Don’t take the view of it we do on we can’t do the other. There is an 8% sales tax & 8% of 677 million is significant. And it’s not just sales tax. There are many sources of tax revenue available. Encourage to focus on what can be gained by attracting businesses vs. what might be lost.
David Dempsey – how does processing the bids work now that the program is in legal peril?
Nancy Hussey – would have to look at the circumstances of the bid and am not prepared to answer at this time.
Laurie Michelman- thanks the planning staff for work and commitment. If the Board wishes it may make a recommendation but it does not have any legal authority beyond that.
Sam Giangreco – hopes Council fully supports this. It’s a message to the merchants to help them get along. There’s been enough talk and it’s now time to act.
John Breanick – agrees with what’s been voiced. Encourages development of downtown.
Anthony Bartolotta – not a question of doing or not but of when. Look at financing.
Jill Fudo – this is not yes or no but the sooner the better. It can only have a positive outcome.
Mark DiVietro – in full support of project.
Laurie Michelman – supports project. It’s a community project, not individual. Some of the beauty and aesthetics seen on South St. would be nice to be seen downtown. Move forward without minute details and by not getting derailed by certain aspects. Reconsider bidding.
Resolution to recommend to City Council to put efforts into encouraging development of downtown. Any specific language desired? Asks for a motion. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 6: Public Hearing and sketch plan review for 281-301 Genesee St. proposed construction of 14,400 SF Walgreen’s
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Rick Mahr, Dunn & Sgromo, representing Pt. 5 Development – previously approved project at the corner of Grant and Seward. Dressed up that corner more. Desire is to do it again at this location. The owner has authorized us to proceed with the request. 1.47 acres combined in a C1 district. Light industrial in a commercial corridor. Residential to the south. Utilities available on and adjacent to the property. Similar to Grant Ave building. Cut block, cut face building. Will not be 24-hour operation, only daytime hours. Picture shows existing landscaping. Will maintain sidewalks and curbs, augment landscaping, plans to be submitted along with lighting and photometrics. Proposing access at Geneses and Columbus. Closing 2 curb cuts close to the corner.
Chair invites members of the public to comment. Closes public hearing and asks Board for comments.
John Breanick – questions size of building on Grant Ave
Rick Mahr – 14, 700 SF
John Breanick – questions if project extends to Hardenbergh.
Rick Mahr – points out on map. Area allows parking, building, storm water management.
John Breanick – questions number of employees.
Rick Mahr- 8 – 12 at any one time
John Breanick – questions parking spaces
Rick Mahr – 64 spaces, 58 are required
John Breanick – questions issues of sewer lines and river
Rick Mahr- survey shows a boxed culvert that we will be keeping the development away from. Engineering is also aware of this. Development will be responsible for any damage done to this. Sewer lines not an issue.
Sam Giangreco – questions gas tanks.
Rick Mahr – removed. DEC has closed the site after clean up and has accepted as clean.
John Breanick – questions storm water management area
Rick Mahr – a small depression in the ground similar to the north side, still in engineering phase. Required plan will include long-term maintenance.
John Breanick – questions site maintenance.
Rick Mahr – if the developers keep it they will maintain. Some sites they sell & then the buyer is responsible.
John Breanick – questions hours
Rick Mahr – 9 a.m to 11 p.m.
Laurie Michelman – reiterate storm water management area concerns. Concerned with any areas that would cause problems
Rick Mahr – on the surface area only a short time, designed to collect, treat and discharge, not hold.
Laurie Michelman – questions lighting plan
Rick Mahr – Walgreen’s has a standard level of illumination they like
Laurie Michelman – asks APD for comments.
Tom Weed – some changes need to be made
Chair asks staff for comments.
Steve Selvek – DRC has reviewed and discussed the following:
· 40 feet wide accesses are excessive, would like narrowed to typical 24 feet
· Minimum set backs for property line is 10 feet along the street. Fairly unique site with some restraints. Current building is set far back. Now wedge of property line along Genesee St. is 1 foot off r-o-w. DRC would like this stretched as far as possible. Decrease the depth of spaces to 18’ and aisles to 24’ adding 2 –3’
· Minimal plant units are required. The Board can consider alternative screening as appropriate
· Snow storage, signage, type and height of lighting discussed. 2-3 existing street lights that can be used
· Dumpster screening
John Breanick – questions set backs between commercial properties
Steve Selvek – buffers not required. 4-foot buffer required at property line.
Agenda Item 7: Public Hearing and sketch plan review 252 North St. R – proposed construction of 24 duplex units, low-income housing development.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Tom Falicchio, Homsite director – developed with sensitivity to housing needs of the City. Taken time to look at and develop project beneficial to the City. Thinks duplexes are more in character to the neighborhood vs. conglomeration of houses. Duplex starts out as rental project that may transition into home ownership.
Barbara Lamphere, 2x4 Construction – plan to be submitted to government agency in February. Would allow to keep rent affordable with 1% interest loan over 30 years. No deep subsidies. State interested in population it’s intended to serve. We are bound by regulatory agreement. Leverage low income tax credits. Sell tax credits to investors to afford project.
Chair invites public to comment.
Steve Case, Dayton St. – Traffic volume impact studies – questions effect on streets. Additional traffic management and equipment would be required. Questions property values and neighborhood impact.
Barbara Lamphere – we will be contracting a traffic engineer. Re: property values. References Auburn Heights and Northbrook, values were increased. Improvements done on homes. Houses built on Austin Dr., buyers made additional improvements.
Linda Bauso – questions traffic. Rochester St. is very narrow making access to Standart Ave difficult. Maintenance is not done now. There is problem with water drainage into basements. What is the cost to the City? Questions road maintenance, especially in the winter.
Donna Laurence, Rochester St. – currently a good, family neighborhood. This will be sitting right on top of current properties. Can’t see where there is any room.
Linda Bauso – the connector road is going nowhere – connect to it.
Al Graney – cannot see duplexes being successful. Single-family homes are more easily sold. Also, increased traffic will be a problem. Drainage issues, where will the water go. Own rental on Dayton has problems with water in the basement. It’s a quiet neighborhood we would like to keep rural and you’re adding 48 more units.
Patrick Crawford, N. Fulton St. – hopes this does not connect to N. Fulton St. The house at 215 is on the wrong spot and has an easement. Own driveway is on the opposite side of the house and would lose. Dip on Rochester would still cause problems. Lowest point where most drainage is. Also has traffic concerns. Who will be hired and when will the results be available?
Don Fennick – has constant problem with water in yard. Also concerned with the traffic and the riff-raff that will come with it. It’s a quiet neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. Does not want to see the project developed.
Steve Barski, Dayton St. – duplexes are a bad idea. There are severe drainage problems here. Bought house due to country setting in rear.
Joe Mucedola, Dayton St. – same concerns as others. The aesthetic value will be compromised with duplexes right there. People will not want to live there. Already 2 low-income developments going to Casey Park. Environmental impacts – it will wipe out the woods and animals living there. Traffic issues are a concern and sidewalks.
Ella Barski, Dayton St. – problems with water in basements in the area. It’s a quiet neighborhood now. Project will ruin the aesthetics of the area, increase traffic, increase noise. Very upset about the idea, it’s not a feasible project. How far from the road will it be?
Steve Selvek – the road itself is 30’ wide as required. Would have to be an agreement between the City and develop to widen it at the end. City is not at this point looking to widen it. As plans are in early stages the City has not looked intro traffic plans yet. We will require this of the developer.
Ella Barski – how close to the back yards?
Steve Selvek – the back yards of the duplexes back up to the back yards of the homes on Dayton St.
Kim Campanola, N. Fulton St.- traffic right now is horrendous. Does not want to look into her back yard to see duplexes. The complex will have a negative impact on the values. Also adds another low-income development to the school district. The area is quiet right now & the police rarely are called.
Lisa Prior, N. Fulton St. – there are children in the area who are able to play outside & in the street. Increased traffic will take that away. Questions the increased potential of crime. Questions the caliber of people who will be moving in. Will police be routinely patrolling the area? Is opposed to the project.
Don Fennick – there are other properties that are already leveled with access that this project can be done.
Joe Mucedola – wants to know how this will be different than any other low-income project. Also, having only one access will be crowded. Questions if the developer would want the project in their back yard.
Christina Crawford, N. Fulton St. – bought home because of the area & the openness. There are drainage and traffic issues. This is not what we want in our back yards. Auburn has enough low-income housing, no more is needed.
Amanda Mucedola, Dayton St. – these are rentals, by nature people who rent are transient. This takes away from the close-knit feel of the neighborhood. Squeezing more people into the area and into classes at school is not a good idea.
Chair closes the public hearing.
John Breanick – questions developers’ occupancy, need for low income, property size
Barbara Lamphere – we don’t own all the properties, we develop them. It is a rental-housing program. Lots will not be subdivided; there will be play areas and a community building.
Chair – next meeting is February 6, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Asks for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
| 
