City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Sam Giangreco, Allen Zentner, John Breanick, Brian Halladay, Laurie Michelman, Anthony Bartolotta, Mark DiVietro
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Tom Weed, APD; Jennifer Haines, Director, OPED
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: 70 Arterial East. C-1: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Site Plan Application for the construction of a Drive-up ATM, measuring approximately 9 ft wide by 11 ft tall. The ATM is to be located adjacent to the existing parking along the Seymour Street Extension side of the property. Empower Federal Credit Union – Applicant.
Dan Todero, Director of Facilities, EFCU – drawings have been revised with signage and lane markings as requested at the last meeting. Believes the only issue now is traffic.
Chair asks for comments from the public.
Gary Gianotta, Chief, APD – has not seen the recent update. After reviewing the proposal there is some concerns with the traffic flow. There have been a number of accidents in the adjacent intersection. The area is already congested. Concerned that any increase in cars would exacerbate the problem. Requests a traffic study be done and paid for by Empower. Is not against the project but is concerned with taking a bad situation and making it worse.
Chair closes the public hearing and asks the Board for comments.
John Breanick – asks Police Chief where accidents mostly occur.
Gary Gianotta – both intersections have high traffic and accidents. The amount of traffic in and out of the store is phenomenal.
John Breanick – asks Police Chief if there are any seasonal changes to accidents happening.
Gary Gianotta – there are no changes that I can see.
John Breanick – asks Police Chief to look at new plan.
Gary Gianotta – it does not address the traffic flow on the streets, only internally.
John Breanick – is there anything on Franklin St. that would help?
Gary Gianotta – both intersections are a concern. Once the schools are back in session it will be even worse.
John Breanick – is there a crossing guard?
Gary Gianotta – twice a day but that does nothing for vehicular traffic
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Selvek – last month this site plan was proposed to the Board. The Board had a couple concerns with the traffic patterns internal to the site that have been addressed with signage and the striping of the queuing lane for the ATM. The concern still existing is the traffic external to the site. Basically taking a bad problem and possibly making it worse. The applicant provided a generalized traffic analysis that shows an increase in traffic in the area of 1%. The Chief is still concerned with traffic and accidents that occur now and will likely occur in the future and the possibility of that getting worse. In regards to SEQR this is a Type II action that does not require SEQR review. There is a draft resolution for review. It’s up to the Board to balance concerns with traffic external to the site along
with the applicant’s request to develop.
Jill Fudo – in regards to the traffic counts and the counts at the intersections are they calculating out to failure and, if so, what would be the logical remedy to that?
Steve Selvek – we do not have the actual counts for the intersections. It was a generalized study showing a generalized increase in traffic. A detailed traffic study would need to be done.
Jill Fudo – is that an infrastructure issue or an issue that pertains to this project? I think when we’re saying a 1% increase that is minimal in relationship to the magnitude of the problem so I question whether this is something that should be looked at as part of this project or as part of an infrastructure review.
Steve Selvek – it seems that if the problem exists already that it should be looked at as a problem internal to the City. The concern is before that is defined adding any additional traffic to that area that may further the problem. So that does seem that is a problem the City should be looking at and addressing. In the meantime, to add any additional traffic is what the Chief’s concern is.
Jill Fudo – do you think one-way traffic in and out of Byrne Dairy would help? This is just a general question as a possible remedy. Offering one-way in and out so that Franklin St. is exit only and the Arterial is enter only. That may be only a temporary fix and that Byrne Dairy would have to approve, but in order to get the kiosk in there it may be something until the traffic study is done and modifications to the traffic patterns are done that may be an opportunity. I’d hate to see the opportunity for development and growth denied because we haven’t kept up with infrastructure.
Steve Selvek – as you mentioned one concern from the start is Byrne Dairy would have to be consulted on this and would have to agree. In that respect I have not spoken with anyone and do not know if that would be something they are in favor of. With regards to whether or not that would help the problem I would defer to either Officer Weed or Chief Gianotta with a recommendation for that.
Jill Fudo – I can see making the project owner liable for improvements if they were making a significant impact on the numbers of the traffic count but to make them do a traffic study #1 which is an expense almost equal to the cost of the equipment they are purchasing and installing and #2 to make them go through this kind of…in my mind I don’t think that’s fair for the scope of the project. I understand they are the ones wanting to do this project so how much is the project worth to them?
Steve Selvek – that is the very question I’m asking the Board to weigh as to where the responsibility for this lays. If it lays within the realm of the applicant who’s asking to put an ATM machine or if it’s a recommendation that the Board is going to put back to the City that a traffic study should be done there to determine the proper means of addressing the issues there.
John Breanick – looking at the drawing is there any feasible way they could move the ATM over to the Franklin St. side there as opposed to within the parking area facility gas station area?
Steve Selvek – the concern is still that, internal to the site the traffic flow works, people have enough room to maneuver, they can stack a few cars at the ATM, they can move in and out of the site, the concern comes pretty much from the intersections external to the site. It’s going to be difficult to figure out how to remediate those unless a traffic study is done. As Ms. Fudo has mentioned I don’t know that the developer would want to take on a traffic study as the study itself would pretty much be the same expense of having the project completed.
John Breanick – in your professional opinion if the developer so chooses to have the study done I think most of us know what it’s going to look like. If it’s a situation where it’s going to be detrimental to the intersection where do we go from there?
Steve Selvek – again in my professional opinion I feel the traffic study will show that intersection is a failure. As to where to go from there I again would defer to Officer Weed or Chief Gianotta or, in that case, the traffic report as it would likely include recommendations as to how to remediate the situation there.
Laurie Michelman – I have a question on the accidents in the area, I know there has been a lot, but have they been rear end accidents by people entering Byrne Dairy or have they been at the intersection mostly itself.
Gary Giannota – there’s been a variation of everything up there. We’ve had them at the intersection, people trying to make it through the light and/or the stop signs. We’ve also had people t-boned pulling out of Byrne Dairy onto Franklin St. So we’ve had pretty much everything imaginable there & that’s my concern. Even at a 1% increase, it’s still an increase and that’s my worry.
Laurie Michelman – and that’s my other question, is it really a 1% increase or is it people driving by who would be driving by anyway going to the ATM who may be going into Byrne Dairy so is it truly an increase. I don’t know.
Gary Gianotta – you don’t know, what you’ve got up there is a bad situation. I’ve been doing this 27 years and what I see is the installation of this drive-up kiosk is going to make this bad situation worse. That’s all I’m trying to point out to the Board, I’m not against enhancing the area at all, I just want you to be cognizant that it’s going to create…it’s going to make this problem worse and this is an opportunity for us to have a traffic study done and get some possible solutions for that area. The usage for this kiosk is unknown.
Laurie Michelman – for discussion, 1 is there is a vacant property next door to this, if there’s going to be growth there, who should be paying for this traffic study? I understand the concern the applicant should be paying in regard to this but if were putting it more generally for the welfare of the public for growth in the area…
Steve Selvek – my concern in this instance is that the applicant would not pay for a traffic study in this, we could ask the applicant if that’s a possibility or…
Dan Todero – I don’t think it’s an issue of paying for the study it’s an issue that we already know we have a failed intersection. What is a traffic study going to tell us differently? As said in the last meeting in order for this intersection to work you have to signalize the intersection. Obviously we aren’t going to take that on. It’s a matter of what is the traffic study going to do for anybody. We already know it’s a failed intersection. If we thought the traffic study would say this is going to work and the intersection isn’t going to fail then paying $3,000.00 for the traffic study is no big deal but we already know the results and that is to spend a lot of money and who is going to pay for that? Our kiosk isn’t going to make us money they
are there as a service for the members. So it’s not like we spend 50-70 thousand dollars to signalize an intersection and we see any return on it.
Allan Zentner – have you looked at any other areas in the City.
Dan Todero – we spent some time over the summer and we’ve had some discussions with Steve about looking for other areas within Auburn. We made a commitment to Cayuga County teachers and we’d like to make a commitment to the community but it’s a matter of finding the right location.
Allan Zentner – is it possible to put it someplace else?
Dan Todero – yes, it’s possible but it’s a matter of the cost of the location and the cost of the rental to put the kiosk there and the cost of the improvements
John Breanick – at this point we are just beating around the bush here. Being inevitable, if a traffic study is what we need we ought to poll the members as to whether we are going to have a study done, present it to the developer and proceed from there. I’m just hearing the same thing repeated over and over again. So, hedging on a traffic study, I think we know the results of it already. We have to determine if this is the best site for this or not. This is a flawed corner there.
Laurie Michelman – we do generally poll the Board on certain questions. I’m not sure how to go about it on this one but we can go ahead and poll the Board starting with Mr. Divietro.
Mark DiVietro – I agree that it’s a failed intersection but I would hate to see this project go through which is a good project but the KFC building has a sold sign on it, the place where the cleaners was is for sale. If that’s all sold it’s adding more traffic also. There are quite a few empty buildings around there. Why not somehow do something with that intersection now. Nothing at your project but there’s going to be 8 or 9 more businesses there hopefully and what’s that going to cost? The problem should be fixed now. I’m not sure exactly what we ought to do there but that’s where we’re at.
Jill Fudo – I think the community is on the cusp of a lot of growth and I think this is a good place to start with making some kind or procedure in dealing with issues like this. I think the infrastructure is outdated in this area and I think at this point in time I don’t think this project should be held up as a result of the lack of foresight on the part of the City. I know there has been focus on other things in the community trying to get them up to the point where they are current but I think that this area has the potential to grow quickly in the very near future based on the projects I’ve seen coming through and not necessarily this area but in conversations with other clients so I think that it would be behoove the City to fix this issue as it’s part of the bigger picture. Not that this
project is the problem but it’s the tipping point where we have to address the issue. My next question is who would be responsible for getting that ball rolling and I don’t know if it’s actually the Board that is responsible for that or if it needs to go through City Council.
Laurie Michelman – it’s not under our jurisdiction although we can certainly comment on it.
Anthony Bartolotta – I tend to agree. I don’t think that the burden should be placed on Empower to fix the intersection but obviously the intersection does have problems. I think the area is ripe for growth. I don’t know that an ATM is what I consider economic growth and I also weigh the Chief’s concerns about the intersection. I don’t know if the City is willing to split the difference with the bank to do a study. I don’t know how to answer that.
Allan Zentner – I think that a traffic study isn’t going to tell us anything that we don’t already know. It does need to be fixed although in order to fix it I guess we do need a traffic study. I hate to see a bad situation become worse. This is a 1% increase and how many 1% increases are we going to allow to take place here before we finally stop? It has to stop somewhere or be fixed.
John Breanick – I think we definitely have a mess here. I think this maize we have here on Franklin, Capitol with little crossovers and such something needs to be resolved there before we have any more development in that area. To exasperate the situation any more than it is I don’t think is acceptable. It was brought about so that with the dry cleaner area and other sections of retail there along with KFC being sold to another future tenant, it may be 1% now but it’s going to be more within the next couple years and we have to live with it. I think we need to address what’s going on in this area. We might want to possibly look at making some areas one-way there if that would help reduce the situation at all. I don’t know, I’m not the traffic expert but some areas it has
worked.
Sam Giangreco – I have a different perspective on the whole thing. It’s been a mess since Byrne Dairy came in there, everyone’s aware of that and I don’t think anyone would disagree. However, we’re talking about businesses that may flourish in the future. I’ve been watching Colonel Sanders sit there for about 4 – 5 years or longer and it’s just sitting there getting broken windows. The other places there have recently gone out and they aren’t suited for too much. One of the buildings there I wouldn’t put anything into. It used to be a tractor store at one time and then you have the former dry cleaner that is still outfitted for such. Is there an ATM already in the building? So people utilize it at present. With respect to the Police Chief
I’ve seen the influx of traffic get a little increase in the summer time especially when the ice cream window is open and people hang out, things like that. But the rest of the progress is out Grant Ave. People who utilize this kiosk are people who are going to spend money out there. I think we are standing in the way or progress to give people that convenience that is desperately needed on this end of town as well. As you know there are a couple of banks looking at drive throughs in the future and that’s merely for convenience so people as consumers can go out and utilize those facilities and take advantage of our stores. It is a mess, yes, but I don’t think we should fault this gentleman or have him pay for any traffic studies. I don’t think the City is going to come with it, I don’t think the City is going to come up with a dime right now because they’ve got financial woes of there own and this is going to be the last thing on the totem
pole. So we’re talking progress here. Without doing this in another 4 – 5 years just the way it is. I don’t think anyone is going to move on this real quick, I really don’t. I think this is a good idea, I don’t think it’s going to create that much more havoc. Most of the people who use this type thing, especially for the credit union, a lot of them are teachers, they’ll be getting out later the kids are already gone. I’m for the machine. I think the traffic study is beside the point. We do have a problem there but that should have been addressed when Byrne Dairy went in. It’s not going to go away and I can’t see the City spending money on this right now and not for quite some time.
Laurie Michelman – thank you for all the comments. My comments echo what most of you already said. I think as Mr. Giangreco already said that this is an existing business as opposed to a new business going in. We’ve already made an investment in them and they’ve made an investment in us. And though this is a tenant coming in for Byrne Dairy it’s still part of that project and I don’t see the benefit of forcing a traffic study at the cost of the applicant. Again I think this is something, as much as we can get to the City or the Council, for them to address this issue because we talk a lot about economic development in this community and we talk about growth but if we don’t have the mechanism for growth we aren’t going to see it. And if we have too many obstacles to that growth
and don’t address those we’re just spinning our wheels trying to get people to come in and just have to say no to them is not really a benefit to our community. So without getting on too many soapboxes here we can probably move forward and start addressing whether or not anybody wishes to make a motion to adopt the site plan application at this time. So moved by Sam Giangreco. Is there a second? If not the motion will fail.
Steve Selvek – the motion needs to be withdrawn or it will fail.
Laurie Michelman – the alternative if the motion is withdrawn we can ask for a motion to table for any additional information if any.
John Breanick – asks the applicant how he feels about tabling and sitting down with the Police Chief, Design Review and Planning staff to see what can be done.
Dan Todero – the issue is how to mitigate the traffic problems at these intersections and I don’t know what his thoughts are as to what needs to be done there. I’m going to go back to a matter of expense to do anything. If it’s a matter of putting up one-way signs, fine, a matter of putting up stop signs, fine. Signalizing an intersection is cost prohibitive. As it would be for the City. I’m not adverse to sitting down and talking but I don’t know how it would come to closure.
Laurie Michelman – I’m wondering if there would be any benefit to tabling it for further discussions.
Steve Selvek – I don’t believe there would be a benefit in tabling it at this point. The motion has been made and has yet to be seconded. Again, the motion is in the affirmative. If the Board feels that this indeed is going to create a major traffic issue they reserve the right to vote no and defeat the motion. If we table it, we’re going to be back here again next month Last month staff asked that a traffic study be done and at that time we wanted the input of the Police Chief to get his feeling and perspective on it. Again the concern becomes that, if the traffic study is requested and whether the City or the applicant comes up with the money for it or it’s split down the center. Once that traffic study is done and is in the City’s hands and it does show there is an issue, the City at
that point has an obligation to correct that deficiency. And likely if it’s as simple as putting up a stop sign, it’s not a problem to address. If it’s the installation of a traffic signal that may or may not be done at that point. With regard to doing a traffic study the Planning Department does have a services line which is there to help support the decisions made by the Planning Board and we do have a small set of funds set aside that the City could either split the cost of a traffic study with the applicant or the City can fund the study as requested by the Board for this particular issue. We’re struggling with the fact that it’s not necessarily the responsibility of this particular applicant but it may be in part trying to balance that side.
John Breanick – does that part of Seymour St. come under the auspices of the City or, because it’s within 100 feet of the highway, fall under the auspices of the State.
Steve Selvek – that section of Seymour St. is under the direction of the City however any intersections within 1 block of the State right of way are controlled by the NYS DOT so at that point there would be the need to defer to NYS DOT to get their input as well. It can be assumed that NYS will not provide the City any money to remediate the problem.
Laurie Michelman – to clarify, there would be funds available for the City to pay for the entire traffic study if we were to require one?
Steve Selvek – yes
Mark DiVietro – is there a way for Planning Board to request the Council to have this done? The problem is there and we’re just adding on to it.
Steve Selvek – something of that nature can easily be done. It can be provided as an agenda item or memorandum to the City Manager. Likely from the Planning Director as well as the Chief of Police as to the issue at hand there. And to have Council to review the issue and move forward on it.
Jill Fudo – can we table this until next month with the opportunity for it to go in a direction we request it. The City review this area and their immediate future plans for the area so if we understand it and we take on this project there will be accommodations for it in the future. I’m 100% for this project but the fact of the matter is there are unknowns out there and the known is the intersection fails and it’s something that needs to be remediated and who’s going to do that. And if it’s not going to be remediated then there’s no way this project could ever be successful in that it would cause a long-term problem. Well it wouldn’t cause it; it would be part of a long-term problem that’s been occurring in that area. If were going to turn our backs on development that’s fine but we need to be cognizant of that fact.
Laurie Michelman – the only way to table it is to have Mr. Giangreco withdraw his motion and have a new motion.
Sam Giangreco – well here’s my point. We’re going to have this back next month and regurgitate the same things one more time again with the same outcome. I respect all your opinions but we’re not going to get anyplace. I can’t see this Manager right now saying that we’ll do something to alleviate this problem. I really don’t see it. There’s other places in the City that have been problems for 20 years, I could name some but I don’t want to take up your time, they’ve never been addressed, never gone anywhere. And we’ve got something that’s in progress here, it’s so minor, I think it’s going to work itself out.
Anthony Bartolotta – is it too late to 2nd the motion?
Laurie Michelman – no, you can 2nd it.
Anthony Bartolotta – I’ll 2nd it then.
Laurie Michelman – so we have a motion to adopt the resolution made by Mr. Giangreco and seconded my Mr. Bartolotta. Mark DiVietro, Jill Fudo, Sam Giangreco and Laurie Michelman vote approval. Allen Zentner, Anthony Bartolotta and John Breanick vote against. Motion carried.
Laurie Michelman – I think there’s a lesson in here and direction, I think there’s an agreement amongst the Board and a direction to bring this before City Council that this is an area of concern that needs to be addressed immediately particularly in light of the fact that we just approved this project.
Steve Selvek – I will address that with the appropriate department heads to see how we can move forward with a traffic study for that intersection and the possibility of remediating the concerns.
Agenda Item 2: 252 North Street Rear. R-3: Planned Residential Zoning District. Planned Development Determination for a 30-unit (15 Duplexes) housing development consisting of twenty (20) 2-bedroom and ten (10) 3-bedroom units all will attached garages. The development will serve families whom are at or below 60% of the Median Family Income. This translates, for example, to an annual family income of $34,440 for a family of four. Please see review process below. Two Plus Four Development Co. Inc. – Applicant
This is NOT a public hearing. The purpose of this review is for the Planning Board to Determine whether or not the housing development proposal qualifies for review as a Planned Development. The Planning Board’s decision does not provide the applicant the approval to begin construction. Instead, this decision is to determine which development type the proposal represents; thereby informing which review method will be used.
In the R3 zoning district both Standard Development and Planned Development are permitted. Standard Development is development that is allowed and regulated by the R1: Single-family zoning portion of the code. Planned Development provides a level of flexibility above and beyond R1 development. It allows dimensional standard to be modified by the Planning Board to create a neighborhood that sensitive to the context in which it is located. This may include clustering housing, preserving wooded areas or wetlands, and/or minimizing the infrastructure. A detailed description of these alternatives will be reviewed at the Planning Board Meeting.
Laurie Michelman – wish to make clear that regardless of the determination of the Board tonight it does not give the applicant the right to proceed with the project. It is purely a determination by the Board on how to proceed with reviewing this project. Asks the owner or agent for presentation.
Tom Falicchio, ExO Homsite – introduces Barb Lanphere representing 2+4 as the developer and Bob Vollmer, the architect and they will discuss this further.
Barb Lanphere – wants to address some of the issues we received from Steve and this has to do with determining if this is to be viewed as a Planned Development District or not. One of the issues was whether this development is addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Narration attached.
Bob Vollmer – shows representation pictures of what the streetscape may look like. We’ve taken pictures of the neighborhood surrounding it and used that we’ve added a mix of housing in here to show a similarity of what would be already existing in the neighborhood. The mix, as far as the size of the houses, is what we’re proposing. The next plan is to help orient everyone to where were at. Points out where parcel is located. Next plan shows entire parcel they are working with. The part that is outlined in red in the parcel they are interested in. The yellow shows the entire parcel. Points out the streets surrounding the area. The green space is a 25-foot planting screen proposed. Also an area where we’ll be collecting some of the storm drainage, it all generally flows
in this direction. This parcel is shown as being individual lots; we’re showing that just to represent what could be done in the future. Barb has said we’re looking at this as an entire parcel, not individual parcels. Coming up Rochester St. this would be our street with a cul-de-sac at the end. This would be our entrance coming off of Fulton St. Coming in here it has necessitated us putting in a retaining wall on one side. When coming off Fulton there’s quite a dip. This part we’ve filled in. This plan is intended to give a general idea of what’s happening with the grading. The entire storm drainage plan hasn’t been developed yet; a concept is what we’re looking at. This is on a 2-3% slope down, there ends up being a fairly decent sized bank here, the storm water along here you see represented by dips and contours flowing down this direction being picked up by storm drains and storm drain piping and
going across over into this area. The exact drain off we’re not sure of yet but it’s going to follow the natural drainage paths. We’ve taken a look at the sanitary system, the water system and the storm drainage system and tried to get an idea of how that would be developed also and make some reasonable sense for our project. The water pressure we’re running out there is static pressure of about 70 pounds. We’ve go about 25 – 30 pounds of residual pressure so we have sufficient pressure to run our development. This work is subject to engineering review; we haven’t quite reached that part yet. The sanitary line runs down this way. Trying to run it straight down the street we had to create an easement cut across here. Beyond that we’d have to put in some type of pumping system. We’ve tried to keep the system to where we could use gravity throughout. The community room on this end of the project may have to pump
its sewage but that would be a private system for that building. The water line would connect both on Fulton and Rochester and would serve in a straight line with a fire hydrant. The green line, again deflecting storm water down this end of the cul-de-sac. The majority of it we’re collecting and running out this direction which would run out into the natural drainage system.
Laurie Michelman – since this is not a public hearing I’m going to switch the Board comments and Staff comments around because I think it would be helpful to have staff explain a little more about the procedure and the information for making our decision.
Steve Selvek – as mentioned this parcel in particular resides in an R3 zone which is Planned Residential Development District. There are 2 parcels in this district so I’ll ask the Board to bear with me as neither parcel has ever been developed and for many of us at the staff level it’s the first time working with this set of codes. What’s allowed in the R3 district is two different types of development, standard and planned. Standard development would be typical R1, single-family homes, 80-foot wide lots, 90 feet deep, 6,000 square feet minimum. And all those dimensional criteria would be part of that standard development. Planned development permits those uses allowed in the R1 but allows for the Board to look at the dimensional requirements and change those. One of the issues
mentioned was to try to shorten the street to use less infrastructure by narrowing the size of the lots. So those types of leniencies can be granted by the Board. What’s important to note is that the uses permitted in this district are the R1 uses. The 1st is single-family detached housing we’ve spoken of before from a feasibility standpoint, to help create affordable housing it’s very difficult to proceed in that specific direction. The other use allowed is semi-detached single-family housing. Essentially what this comes down to is it’s a 2-family side-by-side duplex that has a property line going down the center of the home so that each portion of the home has its own lot. Those are the 2 uses allowed within the R3 zone. The R1 as well as the R3. The purpose of the R3 zone is such that, things such as lot line house, patio houses, village homes and twin houses which is semi-detached single-family home could be designed and
taken into account. Essentially there’s a break down of two different processes here; there’s standard residential development and the review of that is much like that of any other subdivisions that have come before the Board. Looking at it to make sure the infrastructure is there, the lots meet the minimum standard, etc. It comes through as a subdivision. We work through the series of different schematics to get to something that meets all the criteria needed. The Board votes on the preliminary subdivision then the final subdivision. The Planned Development, again, because it’s trying to give more leniency how the lots are set up & laid out, the idea of clustering homes, creating denser areas while preserving some of the wooded areas, some of the natural topography. It’s a two-step process; this is similar to what the Board has been through for zoning code amendments, things of that nature. It comes to the Board as site plan review, the Board does
the review and either recommends or not recommend the plan to City Council. The final approval comes from Council at that time. That’s where we’re at right now, trying to determine if this site plan as show fits into the criteria or qualifications outlined for a Planned Development District. The major difference is whether or not this Board reviews it solely or it goes before Council for their final stamp of approval. Again, a Planned Development allows for those leniencies under the dimensional standards, not necessarily the use. Really what is required to be considered as a Planned Development, the applicant went over a few minutes ago in answering a few questions I had posed to her in a letter then to the Board members in the memo. Essentially is the development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? Is it doing what the Comprehensive Plan set out to do originally? Provide multiple types of housing, allow for affordable housing, different
styles, different types, etc. Secondly will it create a more desirable environment than would be possible through standard development? Essentially this comes down to on these large tracts of land we may have specific habitats or natural areas that are significant and worth preserving and this allows the applicant to look at the entire site for prime areas worth developing, areas that are easiest to develop, where to cluster housing to essentially overload the density in that area allowing open space in another area. The density should balance over the entire site. Will the efficient use of land result in smaller networks of utilities in the streets? We touched a little on that before. Will the development provide housing types for all economic levels by providing variety in occupancy, meaning owner vs. rental, the type and design of the housing? Will desirable characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation, geological features be preserved or enhanced? These all go
into the idea of doing an evaluation of the complete site to determine where the best portion of the site is to develop. Finally, will beneficial open space be preserved? What the Code does is outline a series of illustrations that look at a for instance site showing where wetlands are, where natural drainage is, where mature trees are. The idea around Planned Development is to work around the site instead of against it. Instead of coming in and putting in a strict recto-linear street pattern, working with the topography there. Not to say that a recto-linear pattern isn’t appropriate on this site, it’s those types of considerations. What the Board is looking at is whether or not this particular design meets those qualifications for consideration as a Planned Development. Staff has reviewed this design and feels that it is more representative of Standard Development because, in order to have a Planned Development you have to understand what is happening for the entire
parcel. It’s an idea of master planning so that you realize this area may be appropriate for small lots and having things clustered more closely together because other areas need to be reserved for single family development in the future. There might be other areas that are wooded with some type of habitat that should be preserved allowing this area to be developed more densely. The concern is that without having a master plan at hand, even at a schematic level, it’s difficult to determine whether or not this is Planned Development. This may be a portion of a Planned Development but Staff’s feeling is that it, in and of itself, is not a Planned Development. It more closely resembles Standard Development. Any questions please ask and I’ll try to clarify.
Laurie Michelman – 2 clarifications – when you’re talking about the two-step process, can you repeat that again? Our determination, if we determine this is a Planned Development we recommend it to City Council?
Steve Selvek – that’s the actual review itself. The determination of whether it is or is not Planned Development is in the purview of the Board. The two-step process is the subsequent review of the project.
Laurie Michelman – I want to be clear that regardless of which determination the Board makes it doesn’t mean it’s an impediment to the project itself.
Steve Selvek – correct, this is setting the process to move forward. It’s not requiring you to support or not support the project. It’s solely a determination on how to go about reviewing the project.
Sam Giangreco – how much of a buffer zone is in place from Dayton St. over to the development.
Bob Vollmer - we’ve allowed 25 feet. The zoning ordinance asks for 15. One thing that Steve said that concerns me, if we go with the Standard Development we have to subdivide this entire parcel into individual lots and we don’t want to do that.
Steve Selvek – regardless of which development you move forward with the, only uses allowed are single family and single family detached. Those are two available options with regard to the use, not necessarily the dimensional standards but with regards to the use. First is the ability to subdivide the parcels. This would require a 31-lot subdivision such that each ½ of a home is its own lot. I realize this presents some logistical issues for the ownership and management of the individual lots. The other issue, because this use in particular and this use meaning whether it be subdivided so they were duplexes or developed as what we define as a high density residential area seeing that all the units would be on one parcel would require a use variance.
Bob Vollmer – as far as I know, Barb may know better, but I think the funding source requires this to be looked at as a single parcel.
Jill Fudo – the qualification for this being a Planned Development include the maintenance of an existing topography, vegetation, etc. I really don’t see any gestures on your part showing how that is going to be maintained on the site plan as well as in any of the drawings I’ve seen. You’ve basically taken a steamroller approach to the properties. I understand that there is some maintenance of the existing topography but it appears to me there is a lot of cutting and filling, especially when looking at the lots on the north side of the development. I think the property has a lot existing wild life and vegetation that needs to be acknowledged as part of going through with this. Is there any acknowledgement to this at all in the process of developing? What is long term plans for this property?
I see the roads are rather truncated, does that mean there will be further development on the property and what is it? That’s part of the planning and long-term use plan Steve was talking about. What is the intended use for the remainder of the property?
Barb Lanphere – at this point we don’t know if there will be any additional development or if there is what it will be. I think that if we all knew what was happening with the connector rd. we might have a better idea of what might happen with that property. It’s hard for us to figure out what can be done with it if we don’t know what the realities are of the connector rd.
Bob Vollmer – as far as the development of the road the driving thing about the location of it was the sewer system. Talking with the City they were not anxious for us to put a pump system in to have a forced main there. Once you start going over the hill where we are then you start having to pump up to the septic system. One of the reason I point out how we did the sewer was a portion of that on the road as far down as we went we could get a nice flow on that but once you get closer to Fulton you can’t get the sewage over into the manhole on Fulton St. So we could relocated that but it would require a forced main to do that.
Laurie Michelman – any other questions?
John Breanick – one of the drawings you had up there you had a large parcel with a section of it there, weren’t you saying the problem with topography was towards the Rochester/Fulton St areas? If I recall from that drawing it seems you would be able to shift this further where you wouldn’t have that problem. Is that correct?
Bob Vollmer – yes
John Breanick – is there much to gain to shift that at all?
Bob Vollmer – in our meeting with the City Engineer we’ve stretched the road about as far as he would allow. Other than that I don’t know of any reason it couldn’t be other than the additional cost of the infrastructure.
Barb Lanphere – that’s part of the problem too, with the standard development, the length of the road. We’d have to have a variance for the side yard and if we didn’t get the variance then the road would be even longer and it’s beyond what the City Engineer would approve.
Laurie Michelman – wants clarification on the funding source. Last time there was concern about you getting the proposal in. So assuming you’ve received approval…
Barb Lanphere – no, actually the Housing Trust Fund Board met today so we should be hearing very shortly.
Laurie Michelman – when you say it would be difficult are there restrictions on the funding that you are aware of?
Barb Lanphere – this would be very complicated because of the syndication and so on because we are syndicating this with investors so it would be pretty complicated. I don’t know if it cannot be done but it would be very complicated.
Laurie Michelman – I’m just not clear on it so is there any way…
Barb Lanphere – it’s a project, it’s being considered a project. It’s all under one ownership, the property would be owned by the partnership, it would be syndicated. I suppose you could syndicate 31 lots, I don’t know, we’ve certainly never done that before.
Laurie Michelman – with the idea of the project to eventually turn over ownership…
Barb Lanphere – the potential is there for that to happen
Laurie Michelman – the potential or the intent?
Barb Lanphere – well the potential, we don’t know what the situation is going to be in 15 years. I mean we don’t know what kind of resources will be out there, we don’t know what the economy is going to be like, we don’t know a lot of things but it’s set up in such a way that it could transpire in 15 years.
Laurie Michelman – ok, thank you
Steve Selvek – just for clarification for the Board, the Planned Development District designation does not forego the issue of having one lot developed vs. having 31 lots developed. That’s specific to the use of the lot. If it were developed as one large lot with 30 units it would require a use variance. The Planned Development simply allows the Board to consider different, optional or alternate dimensional standards. In this case the lots, if subdivided into 31 separate lots, would meet all the criteria with the exception of the lot width and possibly the side yard set back. As such, as a Planned Development an area variance would not be required for those types of considerations. As standard development an area variance would then be required in addition to a use variance for those issues.
So there’s still going to be the issue, regardless if this is Planned Development or this is standard development, of having 31 separately deeded lots.
Laurie Michelman – other questions?
John Breanick – asks Steve if the occupancy rate of the Auburn Housing or private homes in the area have any relevance to this.
Steve Selvek – I don’t believe so. A lot of the intent of this is to create quality affordable housing. The focus is more on working families so this gives someone an opportunity, who may not otherwise have one, to rent a house at a reasonable rate that’s well maintained and is of good quality, etc. whereas a lot of times, what we run into, is the housing that is available to those individuals in the community with 30 – 60 % of the mean family income tend to be lower quality rentals. That’s an issue we struggle with Citywide now.
John Breanick – is there any place in this community currently meeting this need?
Steve Selvek – I’m not aware of any.
Laurie Michelman – any other questions? If not there is a resolution in the packet; the resolution itself is for us to determine if this does qualify for consideration as a Planned Development however you may also make a motion that this qualifies as a standard development.
Steve Selvek – for clarification purposes with regards to what the Chair just mentioned the Code sets this up such that Planned Development is what the determination is and if it’s voted it’s not a Planned Development the default is to standard development. For the intent in trying to make motions in the affirmative that we’ve reviewed this motion in particular for Planned Development.
Laurie Michelman – what is the alternative if no one makes a motion for Planned Development? That’s what I was trying to see…
Steve Selvek – that’s a question for legal counsel.
Laurie Michelman – well let’s throw it out there and see if there’s a motion for Planned Development based on the qualifications in the Code.
Sam Giangreco – if we make a motion saying what you just said then that’s what’s set in stone at that point?
Laurie Michelman – if someone makes the motion and someone seconds it the motion’s on the table and then we can vote on it and either ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ it.
Laurie Michelman – I looked at the Code and it’s not artfully worded so it’s a little difficult to make a set determination on this but it does say effectively that we are to determine one way or the other on the Planned Development. So, I don’t generally make the motion but just for the sake of something moving I will make the motion that this proposal qualifies for consideration as a Planned Development.
John Breanick – so that means, Madame Chair, that we vote yes it’s a Planned Development and if we vote no it’s a standard development?
Laurie Michelman – that’s right. That’s our understanding, it’s not clear but it’s our understanding that would be the procedure.
Jill Fudo – I’ll second it.
Laurie Michelman – motion has been seconded. Asks the secretary to call the roll.
All members vote negative except Anthony Bartolotta.
Laurie Michelman - Motion denied. Motion is defeated and not adopted so this would proceed as a standard development. Thank you for coming in and we’ll continue with the project. This does not mean that the project fails.
Laurie Michelman – I want to clarify with Jill this is not your last meeting but the next one?
Jill Fudo – yes
Laurie Michelman – I’ll hold my comments then til the next time. Are there any other matters to be brought before the Board tonight?
John Breanick – what is the status of the connector road?
Steve Selvek – it’s still in the hands of the State DOT to determine how they want to make the connection at North St. whether that will be or even where they want to make the connection at North St. There are three possible alternatives directly across from Quarry Rd., across from York St. or somewhere in the middle. Until that determination is made it’s going to continue to hang.
Jill Fudo – can we have some type of motion to bring before City Counsel to review the situation on Franklin St., the five corners area, see if that can be resolved in some timely fashion since we’ve proved it.
Laurie Michelman – I was actually going to bring that also again just as a clarification perhaps if you have any comments you wish to add to it you could possibly e-mail them to Stephen.
Steve Selvek – what I will do is with the understanding that it’s a consensus among the Board I will speak with the involved department heads which will likely be Planning, Police as well as Engineering and we’ll see what we have available with moving forward in addressing concerns and issues that are there. In light of the fact that there’s numerous properties around there that have the ability to be redeveloped and that’s only going to further the problems at the intersection.
Jill Fudo – the thing that concerns me the most is that the old Sun-brite Cleaners and the car repair shop have the ability to be utilized without having significant repairs to the exterior and modifications to the properties so we don’t have the ability to modify those intersections through those projects because they’ll be modified from within so we’ll have issues to deal with as a result of that.
John Breanick – anything further on the Caro-Vail project?
Steve Selvek – I’m not sure what their status is. At this point I’m assuming that after receiving approval from the Board they still had some concerns as to the financing and feasibility of the project itself. And given the time that has past I believe it’s been well over a year now, the likeliness of them moving forward specific to that project will be is probably very minimal. In the event they do decide to move forward and pull a building permit from Brian at that time he will review what the project was, determine if circumstances have changed in that area, whether it be traffic generated by additional development at say the intersection of Columbus and Genesee or wherever to determine whether that site plan still holds true to what it was at that time.
Sam Giangreco – what is the status of the project next to Walgreen’s on Grant Ave?
Steve Selvek – that project has fallen through. They had pulled a building permit to do the excavation in that area and Panera Bread pulled out of the contract with HDL Property Group and HDL is not willing to move forward until it has an anchor for the plaza itself.
Laurie Michelman – so is it going to stay looking like it’s looking right now?
Steve Selvek – that’s a concern I’ll have to address with the Code Enforcement Office as to how long they have that. I believe a permit is only valid for 6 months or so.
Laurie Michelman – if someone who walks in that area it’s really….
Steve Selvek – the front portion, the way that was set up cuz they originally wanted that out parcel and they realized they couldn’t fit an out parcel there that would be green space in the front portion but the rear portion was to be pavement and building.
Laurie Michelman – I thought some of that front portion, even with the new development, was going to be green space.
Steve Selvek – yes
John Breanick – the church that’s developing up there, I was up to Denny’s the other day and looks like they are putting dirt onto the back of that hill again.
Steve Selvek – I’ll check into that.
John Breanick – I think we had a problem with loose dirt running off into the creek there.
Jill Fudo – yeah, they had drain screens or erosion screens up on the top but I didn’t see any on the back which may be a very good point, maybe it’s just residual from previous years.
Jill Fudo – since we’re on that intersection, across the street where the Quizno’s is, that little strip mall there, it doesn’t appear the planting is in mind with what we had approved. I think there is like two in that island, two little shrubs. But it doesn’t look like what we had approved.
Steve Selvek – acknowledges.
Jill Fudo – also, Mario Sofo’s place on North St. or Rocko – Sofo’s place up there, I know that Brian said a couple meetings ago that they were waiting for the settling after the winter and we’re past the winter now so are they going to make some, I mean we gave them approval for their use and they are using it for what they came in for, I mean we gave them approval for the site plan. It looks like it’s pretty wide open and they have a lot of overgrowth and lack of maintenance, etc.
Laurie Michelman – I just want to raise one more thing and that’s I know Counsel is not coming regularly to Board meetings anymore but if we have an issue like we had tonight when there’s actually an interpretation of the City Code that’s unique to something that we normally do I would make a standard request that Counsel attend because it’s short notice for us when what’s coming on the agenda and we were given the charge of actually saying when we want Counsel to be here so rather than put an applicant inconvenienced and say we have to table it for Counsel to come it would probably be better to just have that as a standard thing.
John Breanick – makes a motion to adjourn
Laurie Michelman – motion to adjourn. The next meeting is September 4th at 6:30. Everyone seconds.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
