City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 6:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: Sam Giangreco, John Breanick, Anthony Bartolotta, Jill Fudo, Mark DiVietro, Laurie Michelman
Staff: Stephen Selvek, Planner; Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel; Bryan 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: Minutes of January 2, 2007 and February 6, 2007
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes. So moved by Sam Giangreco, seconded by Jill Fudo. All members vote approval with Anthony Bartolotta abstaining from the vote for January 2, 2007 and Mark DiVietro abstaining from the vote for February 6, 2007. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 2: 200 McIntosh Dr. Public Hearing for preliminary site plan approval for construction of a medical/dental office complex consisting of 3 individual buildings ranging in size from 4, 000 SF to 6, 000 SF, parking for up to 82 vehicles, site utilities and infrastructures, signage, landscaping and storm water management.
Chair asks owner or agent to speak.
David Nangle, Auburn – owner of site
James Hagan, Syracuse, Architect – Dr. Nangle purchased the property which is off Grant Ave on the north side. The development concerns only a small portion of the actual parcel which continues over to the connector road and is bisected by Hunter Brook. The east area is wooded and the plaza is at the rear. There are multi-family residential units around the property also. The owner has received a use variance to allow professional office development. The intent is to build and occupy one building for his own dentistry practice. The drive will be in from McIntosh west of the creek. 15 parking spaces in front with 10 additional at the north for staff. The property is large enough for additional development. We also are planning 2 other office buildings of 4,000 SF and
6,000 SF for other medical/dental use. We have approached those who may be interested but have no commitments at this time. We seek approval for Dr. Nangle’s building tonight so we can start building asap. We have met set backs and provided proper buffering. We are extending the water main into the parcel and adding a fire hydrant. Also will be connecting to the existing sewer system. There is a FEMA mapped 100-year flood plain for the parcel but it does not reflect what has happened. A new map is in review. The primarily developed area we are talking about is not in the flood plain area. We’ve anticipated the need for storm water retention but we’ve not done that yet. There is enough area to accommodate it. It is an open field at this time. We plan on keeping as many of the trees as possible. Other open areas will be graded, seeded and maintained as lawn area.
The building for Dr. Nangle’s practice will be one story, wood frame with a basement and pitched roof system. Using and art and craft motif design with a portico and covered entrance. Using architectural shingles, clapboard siding, and stone. The interior layout is also enclosed in the plans.
Chair asks for comments from the public. There being none closes the public hearing and asks for comments from the Board.
John Breanick – questions retention water being added to Hunter Brook
James Hagan – as required by law the run off post development will be less than predevelopment. We are sensitive to the Brook being there and will not be adding to it during peak.
John Breanick – how far east across from the brook does the property extend?
James Hagan – 80’ (points out on map)
John Breanick – is there any intent to develop this?
James Hagan – it would be practical, it isn’t large enough.
John Breanick – will Dr. Nangle maintain sole ownership?
James Hagan – we envision selling off the other buildings and subdividing the properties into flag lots with frontage along McIntosh.
John Breanick – will you develop your own roads or will the City?
James Hagan – they will be private drives maintained by agreement of the three building owners. Water main will be an extension off the City’s as will the sewer system.
John Breanick – asks the size of the sewer/water line.
James Hagan – 24-inch line
Steve Selvek – the collector main runs into the holding main
James Hagan – there are limits on the number of connections to the main per DEC but this will not exceed those limits.
John Breanick – questions buffering.
Steve Selvek – it will be required between the high-density residential buildings.
Laurie Michelman – we do have two letters from neighboring properties against the proposal. One is from the owner of Murray Hill apartments and the other is a petition with signatures from what looks like residents of Murray Hill.
Corporation Counsel – the substance of both letters is that this is more than what was presented to the ZBA in October 2006.
David Nangle – we asked for and received a use variance for dental/medical office space. The area is zoned commercial. I could’ve put a used car lot there if I’d wanted as that is allowed. The variance was required as medical use is not allowed in this zone. As understood the use is for medical/dental offices as seen fit by the Planning Board. The ZBA deferred to this Board for the scope of the project.
Corporation Counsel – this appears to be 3 offices, not singular. Is it a single office or something else?
James Hagan – I was not party to the discussion at the ZBA. The proper owner actually made the application. Discussion was for the use as medical offices. There was no site plan at that point and no limit on size or parking. It was anticipated that the Planning Board would review any plans proposed. Whether it is one or three buildings this is a matter of aesthetics not legality. The proposed plan will follow all Codes.
Corporation Counsel – is the preliminary plan for 1 or 3 buildings?
James Hagan – we’re presenting for approval of the entire concept.
Steve Selvek – to clarify the use variance application it is to construct dental offices and space for 2 to 3 other doctors. It does not mention any limit to one building. The use variance is granted contingent on review from the Planning Board.
Corporation Counsel – the letter writers’ are under the impression that what is being presented this evening is not what was approved at the ZBA.
David Nangle – ZBA approval was contingent on site plan review by the Planning Board. The application never implied the size of the project.
Jill Fudo – questions the maximum a project could have on the site. It could legally be larger.
Steve Selvek – in a commercial zone such as this they could have 40% coverage. This is a 12.2 acre parcel and they are only using 2 acres. The current plan is nowhere near the maximum coverage allowed. They have chosen to stay out of the flood plain to avoid the constraints it would entail to try to build there. The 3-page letter is from the owner of Murray Hill apartments and the 2-page letter with the petition is from Murray Hill apartment residents. In the broad scope this does not represent a majority of the neighboring residents.
Chair – asks for an explanation on the role of the ZBA vs. the role of the Planning Board.
Steve Selvek – I will let Counsel answer that
Corporation Counsel – the function of the ZBA in a use variance is to determine if there is a hardship inherent in the land that the owner cannot realize a reasonable return on the investment if the variance is not granted. A use variance runs with the land, in this case, with the entire 12.2 acres. Opposition from residents would not render this invalid. I think it is more important that the environmental impacts of 1 building would be different than that of 3 buildings. The ZBA did not coordinate a review with this Board. Is what is being asked now different than what was originally presented?
Chair – I don’t have that concern. I want to make sure that each Board acts within its own pervue. A site plan is not necessary for submission to the ZBA.
Corporation Counsel – is SEQR considered for the 1st phase?
Chair – we are the lead agency for SEQR review. ZBA does not review.
Steve Selvek – the ZBA does SEQR review for use variances. They do not have conceptual designs or preliminary thought as to the layout of the site. They reviewed a short EAF as the agency in charge of that specific review. If the site plan had been available at that time this Board would have taken lead agency.
James Hagan – when this was first thought of Dr. Nangle checked the zoning and what was allowed there. At advice of legal counsel he had spoken with other doctors for a joint venture but was not in the position at that time to form any plans. This plan complies with all zoning and local ordinances, etc. With that and the variance it becomes moot as to how many buildings are proposed.
Corporation Counsel – after reviewing the EAF I am satisfied that this is not large than what was represented at last October’s ZBA meeting despite the residents’ concerns.
Jill Fudo – is there any intent to subdivide the east property with access from the connector road.
David Nangle – not at this time.
Chair – questions handicapped access
James Hagan – the site will be regarded for proper ADA access at all buildings along with proper parking accommodations.
Jill Fudo – questions the provision of parking over the required spaces.
James Hagan – in general to accommodate staff and allow for the overlap of patients arriving and leaving. 1 space for every 200 SF is required and we have a total of 15 over the required amount. It is rare to have the extra spaces questioned.
Jill Fudo – only in that it increases the paved area and therefore impervious surfaces. It is not a deciding factor but it is a concern.
James Hagan – we will look into it.
John Breanick – likes the look of the site plan. Parking will be shared and congestion reduced. Will this have to come back for development of the other buildings?
Steve Selvek – the Board can give preliminary approval for the large conceptual plan as seen now and final approval for each phase when a building is proposed. It is up to the applicant whether to do in phases or overall.
James Hagan – we would like approval at this time for the overall concept and then come back in phases as each building site is developed.
John Breanick – it will all be medical, correct?
David Nangle – yes
Chair asks for staff comments.
Steve Selvek – for the benefit of the Board and the record:
· 2 letters have been received in opposition of the project
· Traffic has been reviewed by APD and I confirmed with Officer Weed today that APD has no concerns
· It is a residential neighborhood but the subject property is zoned commercial and has a use variance for development. They will be required to have the appropriate buffers in place between both uses.
· Restraints of the site have put the development where it is
· SEQR does ask that the applicant look at reasonable alternatives but that is only applicable to properties the applicant already owns.
· The parcel has not been rezoned, it has been granted a variance for use.
The Design Review Committee is pleased with the plans so far. Further work is needed concerning engineering and AFD has some concerns with respect to the fire hydrant and turn radii. There is also the proximity to Hunter Brook and flood plain issues. Staff recommends a coordinated review with DEC. DRC recommends approval of the preliminary site plan as presented.
John Breanick – moves for a negative declaration on SEQR.
Steve Selvek – actually the vote should be for lead agency at this time.
Chair – so you make a motion for lead agency on SEQR?
John Breanick – yes. Motion seconded by Mark DiVietro. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion for preliminary site plan approval.
John Breanick – asks for a stipulation that any further development would require site plan approval.
Steve Selvek – this site plan is for the 2 acres being developed only. Anything else would require site plan review.
Motion for approval by Sam Giangreco, seconded by John Breanick. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: 114 Clark St.
Chair – owner/agent is not present so this will be adjourned until the next meeting.
Other Matters
John Breanick – asks about the vacancy on the Board.
Steve Selvek – has spoken with the Mayor. He is currently working on it
Laurie Michelman – points out the schedule in the packets concerning training sessions by Cayuga County Planning Board.
Chair – next meeting is April 3, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Asks for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by John Breanick seconded by Anthony Bartolotta. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
| 
