CITY OF AUBURN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Members Present: Jill Fudo, Anthony Bartolotta, Sam Giangreco, John Breanick, Laurie Michelman
Member Absent: Mark DiVietro
Staff Present: Andy Fusco, Corporation Counsel; Steve Selvek, Planner; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer; Tom Weed, APD
APPLICATIONS
APPROVED: 283-301 Genesee Street
27-35 Clark Street
APPLICATION
TABLED: 335-357 Clark Street
Ms. Michelman: Welcome to the February 6, 2007 City of Auburn Planning Board meeting. Ask everyone to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Secretary called the role.
First item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for the December 12, 2006. Have everyone had an opportunity to review those? Is there a motion to accept the minutes? Motion made by Mr. Breanick, seconded by Mr. Giancreco. All in favor. No one opposed. Motion carried.
Public Hearing: Final Site Plan Application and Review for the construction of 14,458 square foot Walgreen’s Drugstore and the associated site improvement located at 283-301 Genesee Street in the C-1 Zoning District. Dunn & Sgromo Engineering – Project Engineers.
__________________________________________________________
Ms. Michelman: First item is a public hearing on the Walgreen’s Drugstore at 283-301 Genesee Street.
Mr. Marr: My name is Rich Marr, I am from Dunn & Sgromo Engineers and tonight I am representing HDL Properties Group in there request for planning approval for the proposed Walgreen’s. If you remember last month we received preliminary plan approval. We went before the ZBA for approval of the sign package that we requested, we got the sign package approval and then found out that the meeting had been held illegally because public notice wasn’t appropriate. Talked with Mr. Selvek and he said come tonight anyway and hopefully you would give final plan approval contingent still on a proper ZBA meeting.
One change from last month, we were asked by your Design Review Committee to make two small changes to the plan. They asked if we would make our light poles our free standing light poles 24 feet instead of 30 which we did and the retaining wall on the east side should be 24 inches and the plan reflect both of those changes.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. At this time we would ask if there are any members of the public that wish to be heard on this matter. If not, we will close this portion of the public hearing and ask the board if they have any questions.
Mr. Breanick: Any traffic studies done on this site, Steve?
Mr. Selvek: There have not been any traffic studies done this specific site. Tom Weed was consulted as part of the Design Review Committee and he has not issued any concerns with the traffic.
Officer Weed: None at all.
Mr. Breanick: Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Any other questions? Staff comments?
Mr. Selvek: As Mr. Marr pointed out there were two changes from last month’s plans which received preliminary approval. One being the height of the light poles reduced from 30 feet to 24 feet just to be more in kind with the neighborhood commercial zoning of this particular parcel. The other was a concern raised by our Code Enforcement Department of the 36-inch retaining wall, which was then lowered to 24 inches. The applicant did complete a full Environmental Assessment Form. Staff reviewed the form had concerns with regards to impact on the land in redevelopment of a commercial site and along with that the construction of the building and so forth. The action will require a SPEDES permit. Under other impacts with regards to neighborhood character,
the action will create additional employment I believe that they have said in the past 10 to 12 employees initially for that site. Staff does recommend a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and approval of the final plan contingent upon ZBA approval of the signage, which is shown on the plans.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. You do have that full Environmental Assessment in your packets, is there any one who wishes to go through that in detail? If not, then we will move for a motion on SEQRA action and ask I will ask if there is motion for Negative Declaration. Motion made by Mr. Giancreco and seconded by Mr. Bartolotta.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion carried.
Move to site plan approval, any questions before we do a motion on this?
Mr. Breanick: How will we handle this seeing that the meeting of the ZBA
Ms. Michelman: We would give site plan approval contingent upon ZBA approval.
Mr. Breanick: Mr. Fusco, is that appropriate for us to do that?
Mr. Fusco: Yes that would be ok. For the benefit of the record it should be reflected that even though the prior Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was not legal because the notice provision were sent out incorrectly that the record should reflect that the Zoning Board of Appeal did sign off if you will, on the State Environment Review issues presented by this project. Just want to get that into the record.
Now more importantly to answer your question, would conditional site plan approval be legal subject to whatever the ZBA does or doesn’t do, the answer to that would be yes.
Mr. Breanick: Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Is there a motion to adopt a resolution contingent upon ZBA approval? Motion made by Mr. Giancreco and seconded by Ms. Fudo.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion carried. Thank you for coming in, good luck with your project.
Public Hearing: Final Site Plan Application and Review for the construction of a 35-vehicle asphalt parking lot adjacent to St. Mary’s Catholic Church in the C-2 Zoning District. Father Lioi – applicant.
__________________________________________________________
Ms. Michelman: The next item on the agenda is a public hearing for final site plan application and review for the construction of a 35-vehicle asphalt parking lot adjacent to St. Mary’s Catholic Church.
Mr. O’Neill: My name is Mike O’Neill and I am with American Group One and we are representing St. Mary’s Church in this site plan application. We have met with the City Engineer and the Planning Office and accepted their excellent recommendations and incorporated those into our particular site plan, which subsequently has not changed since the last time we were here.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. At this time I will ask if there are any members of the public that wish to be heard. If not, close this portion of the public hearing and ask the members of the board if they have any questions.
Mr. Giancreco: Did the memo regarding the catch basin has that been taken care of?
Ms. Michelman: There is a memo from Mr. Lupien storm water system shown on the above referenced property is accepted and approved contingent upon using an exfiltrating catch basin.
Mr. O’Neill: That is acceptable to us.
Ms. Michelman: Other questions? Move to staff comments.
Mr. Selvek: The plan itself that is in front of you has been brought forth to the board pending approval by the City Engineer with regards to storm water management. City Engineer Bill Lupien has had a chance to review storm water management plans, does approve it contingent upon installation of exfiltrating storm water catch basin which the applicant’s representative says is agreeable.
The plan itself reflects any and all of the changes requested by the Planning Board as well as the Design Review Committee. With regards to SEQRA, there is the short form EAF in your packet and staff has prepared Part II of the short form SEQRA. With regards to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, traffic patterns – there are anticipated affects to the air quality or water quality and the noise level will be maintained at a level appropriate in a commercial area. This is a C-2 area. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plans and will require an exfiltrating storm water catch basins.
In regards to aesthetics and agricultural character, this is located in a C-2 commercial district and the proposed parking lot is there to serve an already public use. There are no anticipated adverse affects to community resources. With regards to vegetation, fish, wildlife, this is a previously developed site within an urban location, no significant vegetation or wildlife. This is likely to be a stand-alone activity. The staff has not identified any other impacts, if the board feels there are any, please include them. The recommendation of the staff is for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and site plan approval contingent upon the installation of exfiltrating catch basins.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. Any questions? If not, move to SEQRA action and ask for a motion for a Negative Declaration. Motion made by Mr. Giancreco and seconded by Mr. Breanick.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion is granted. Move to site plan resolution. Any questions before we make a motion?
Mr. Breanick: Has the parcel of property that the City was going to transfer been transferred over at this point?
Mr. Selvek: The parcel of property has not yet been transferred. That parcel of property the transfer of that parcel of property is contingent upon Planning Board review and approval. Once they do receive Planning Board approval at that point in time the City can transfer that parcel.
Mr. Breanick: Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Is that is stated in the resolution regarding ownership?
Mr. Selvek: We can add that to the resolution, in the council resolution stating that transfer is contingent upon Planning Board review.
Ms. Michelman: You may just want to reference in that resolution in this one.
Take a motion to adopt the resolution. Motion made by Mr. Breanick and seconded by Mr. Giancreco.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion carried.
Mr. O’Neill: I would like to thank everyone for their cooperation and comments of staff. I am sure that Tom Shamon, Bill Jacobs and Paul Lattimore with us this evening and are appreciative.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you for coming in.
Public Hearing: Preliminary Site Plan Application for the construction of a sixty-bed adult care facility and the associated site improvements located at 355-357 Clark Street in the R-1 Zoning District. Parrone Engineering – Project Engineer.
__________________________________________________________
Ms. Michelman: Next on the agenda is a public hearing for preliminary site plan application for the construction of a sixty-bed adult facility and the associated site improvements located at 355-357 Clark Street in an R-1 zoning district. Parrone Engineers are the project engineers.
Mr. Smith: Good evening, my name is Gary Smith, Parrone Engineering. With me tonight is Bud Knapp, Laurie Didio from DePaul Services and Greg Lane, representative from DePaul. We are here tonight to request preliminary approval for a site plan for a 60 bed 40,900 square foot adult care facility. The parcel is located on Clark Street. There are three parcels that DePaul is in the process of purchasing. One large parcel here (points to large sketch) is 15.5 acres, parcel back here total being about 16.9 acres and the front area location and will remain as is. Our proposal is eventually when it is know exactly how much this will be developed, sub-divide this property (points to sketch) into 2 parcels, one parcel in front and the other parcel in back, access for the real parcel will be off
Belmont Avenue.
Proposed is a 40,900 square foot building, one story, shaped in a “U”, access will be off Clark Street. Zoning provides that we provide 90 spaces, staff tells us that 41 spaces is what they have been using, we show the 90 spaces could be developed here, but are plan is to only to construct 41 at this point and bank the rest of them.
Some review from the staff as far as fire exits. What we are doing is providing access around the building, as well as access to the courtyard area of the building to get to emergency doors. There is a turn around or drop off area in the front of the building. Intent is to leave a wooded buffer around the building as well as put in some landscape buffer as required by City Code.
Utilities, right now proposing to connect to a sanitary sewer on Clark Street as well as water main on Clark Street. Storm water fixed up with a pipe system including down spouts and directed to our water management facility at the back of the site. Any questions? Laurie is here to answer any questions as far as the operation of the facility. Bud is here to answer any questions as far as the building itself.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. At this time we will invite members of the public to be heard. Please step up to the microphone, state your name and address for the record please.
Mr. Hickey: Hi, I am Andrew Hickey, I live at 6544 Mullen Drive, which neighbors this property. A couple of concerns that I had, has a variance already been granted for the zoning for this?
Mr. Selvek: A hearing was held this past Monday with the Zoning Board. Essentially what happened is the wrong notification went out to the neighbors saying that is was the January Planning Board instead of the January Zoning Board meeting. Therefore with regards to the use variance a hearing has been scheduled for February 13, 2007 and a notice has gone out to the neighbors with regard to that use variance. At this point a use variance has not been officially approved.
Mr. Hickey: Two other concerns that I have, storm water, mentioned that the storm water will be more or less shifted towards the rear of this which is near the back of my property. My concern is that that already is wet about 10 months out of the year, doesn’t really seem to dry up. My concern is it going to create even more water back there. It is almost always wet back there.
My other concern is that you mentioned the parcel would be sub-divided and my concern also would be what the zone be of the other sub-divided parcels? Is that going to remain R-1 zone? I am just wondering would it invite further development and possibly a commercial development.
Mr. Selvek: The request by the applicant was that the use variance for the adult care facility applies specifically to the front portion of this parcel that is to be used as the care facility, the remaining portion of the property will remain R-1. This is in part because the ZBA is suppose to grant the minimal use variance necessary to achieve whatever proposed action may be, therefore they only need the first 7 or 8 areas of the 15.5 acre parcel.
Mr. Hickey: Those were my questions. Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you.
Mr. Weir: My name is John Weir, I live at 361 Clark Street. I am concerned about the traffic that is going to be coming in and out the project, besides the people that work there in and out all hours of the day. How about the transportation for the people going in and out to hospitals and doctor’s offices. The garbage trucks going in to pick the garbage up. The food trucks, the line trucks if that is the case. From what I see where my house is right now, I am going to be looking right at the front of this building and there is not going to be any kind of wooden land. I moved into my property 22 years ago, all woods behind it, had a vacant house next to me, that is why I moved here because it was nice and quiet. Now you are going to put this in the back, changing the whole
character of the neighborhood, it is like a 60 bedroom house. People in and out all hours of the day.
Traffic on Clark Street is bad now with traffic coming from the Mall. What are we going to be inviting, more accidents on the corner? We have across the street by Cheche Funeral Home, you have Belmont Avenue, all in close proximity. Yet people coming out of Belmont Avenue, coming out of Burkhart Drive and someone coming out of this, there is going to be a major accident. There are going to be problems, you got the trucks coming down to K&L, just going to be more traffic in an area that is residential R-1. Will change the whole form of the neighborhood. Kids use to play back there. I understand that something has to be done with the property, when I moved there 22 years ago, the owner of that property and my property and property around said oh no we are just putting
residential property back there. Residential is a lot different than a nursing home. Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you.
Mr. Adams: My name is Dillon Adams, I live at 363 Clark Street, right next to John. I have to agree with him if you put this in here it will change the nature of the neighborhood. I have herds of deer in my back yard, I have wild turkey. I bought the property two years ago, I have added fruit trees, all sorts of berry bushes and things like that for forage for the wild animals. I really don’t want to sit on my back deck and look out at this nursing home right in my back yard. I believe it will change the nature of the neighborhood along with John’s concerns of the increase in traffic. I bought this property because it was quiet, peaceful and because the woods are there. Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Any one else wish to be heard at this time?
Mr. Wallace: My name is Dave Wallace, 1722 Clark Street across the street from this property. Up tonight I knew very little about this and I agree with my neighbors across the street that is the last thing I want to see from across the street. It is a neighborhood setting. I would rather see the woods stay there and see the property pushed back away from every thing. Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you.
Mr. Carnicelli: I am Art Carnicelli, 6546 Mullen Drive, I live next door to Andy. Is there going to be a fence surrounding this building?
Mr. Smith: No intention at this time to put up a fence.
Mr. Carnicelli: Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Any one else wish to be heard? If not, we will close the public portion of this hearing and I will ask if members of the board have questions.
Mr. Breanick: What is the opening for your access onto Clark Street?
Mr. Smith: For the driveway, 24 foot.
Mr. Breanick: A number of neighbors came up to speak about visibility, would your institution consider doing additional buffering?
Mr. Smith: We can do some additional buffering. Grading has to be done in this area, additional buffering could be put in back.
Mr. Breanick: Has any effort been made to contact the neighbors and to speak to them about this project?
Mr. Smith: I don’t believe at this point that they have.
Mr. Breanick: Of the 16.9 acres you are going to have there how much will be utilized by that diagram there?
Mr. Smith: Right now the rear of this sanitary water facility is 8 acres.
Mr. Breanick: Would you be amenable to moving that further back as one of the speaker’s spoke of?
Mr. Smith: We could. Depends on how far back.
Mr. Breanick: Additional buffering for people that are on Clark Street would probably help some of the situation out back.
Mr. Smith: If you look, this is entirely being left as it is. We could add additional buffering in here (points to sketch).
Ms. Michelman: Other questions?
Ms. Fudo: Does the City Code call for buffering along the drive?
Mr. Selvek: The buffering will be required along the front portion of the residential uses. When you are in a high residential use and the other would be single family. Specific to the driveway itself, the Code excludes the driveway from being buffered for reason that you can’t put trees in a driveway.
Mr. Breanick: You speak of sub-dividing the parcel in the future. You go down and Belmont is a dead end, are you going to be requiring one of the accesses off of one of the neighbor’s there?
Mr. Smith: This parcel right here is part of the purchase, this parcel as well as this parcel.
Mr. Breanick: Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: Other questions?
Mr. Fusco: Madam Chair, I do have one concern. I know that the Environmental Assessment Form used in this case EAF was the short form and I got a question about that. When the EAF was done on, it is in our packet tonight, on January 3rd, there have been some additions to the plan when I first viewed it the first week in January. One is the emergency road flowed around the back and the storm detention area behind it and now we are talking about the use of the last parcel in line for accessing the rear sub-divided parcel or to be sub-divided parcel. It looks to me as if those things are new to me that I didn’t know about when I first looked at this, may well get us over the 10 acre threshold for the use of a long form EAF plus too you are
contemplating a sub-division and also will have to coordinate your review with this board for not only site plan approval but sub-division and with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the variance. It would also seem that that would make the use of the short form EAF in operative as well.
Mr. Smith: I would say if the front part is the only area that we are discussing as far as the use variance that includes approximately 8 acres, falls within the 10 acre requirement.
Mr. Fusco: It is about 8 ½ back when this was first proposed and it looks like there are more than 2 acres of new matter here mainly the emergency road which I know is new because the Design Review recommended it because it wasn’t on your original plan and now we have the storm water retention area behind it and we are hearing that there is going to be further disturbance to access the rear property off Belmont Avenue. It would seem to me again I tried to use the scale that was given on my map to figure roughly, it seems to me that the 10-acre threshold is being exceeded by these additions to what was originally only going to be an 8-½ acre project in the front.
Mr. Smith: As previously stated this project will stay exactly where it was it hasn’t moved from the original plan. The only thing that has been added is this loop road to the rear of the property. This is approximately 8 acres. As far as the sub-division property and the access no work is to be done on that rear section, just an addition to the parcel. As such the Zoning Board of Appeals is requesting a use variance from to allow this use, just on the front parcel.
Mr. Fusco: You would agree then with me at least that because this work at the very least has to get site plan approval and that the Zoning Board has to give variance approval, that there are at least two involved agencies.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Fusco: Therefore I would recommend you use the long form EAF.
Ms. Michelman: As a board we can require that as well if so desired that we have more information.
Mr. Smith: That is fine, no problem.
Mr. Fusco: Also we are hearing from 2 residents, testifying about the change in character. As you know there is a section in the long form addressing that and there was concern about the water that is presently there obviously this is going to add to it because that is your storm water detention area and as you well know there is a section in long form discussing that as well. I don’t have the back of the short form with me tonight, but my recollection is those are not addressed on the back of that.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you.
Mr. Giancreco: I don’t know if it is appropriate to mention this but I feel the need to do so, in light of the economic impact this may cause with so many nursing homes and adult care facility like we have attached to our hospital and struggling with our hospital several different areas, I wonder what the economic impact of this adult care facility would have on that. There are Mr. Weir’s concerns for his intrusion on his property. I see what he is looking at here out the back door of his house he is going to be looking right into the entrance of this facility. Mostly I am concerned about the economic impact and how we are going to support in this community another care facility like this when we are currently struggling to support the ones that we have, especially the one adjacent to the
hospital and surrounding areas. I am very concerned about that.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you.
Ms. Didio: Evergreen presently is a 65-bed facility in Weedsport. For the most part we have maintained a full capacity. The residents that reside there unless they choose to transfer some place else will transfer into Auburn. So those beds in Weedsport would be de-certified through the Department of Health, so there are no additional beds being brought into the County. It is just a transfer of the certificate and the beds would now be in Auburn rather than Weedsport. It is not as if the community is getting an additional 60 beds.
Mr. Fusco: What Mr. Giancreco was asking when there is emergency care needed for your current residents in Weedsport which is going to be moved to Auburn, does not the first call presently for ambulance runs in Weedsport go to Syracuse?
Ms. Didio: No. Comes to Auburn. We utilize at this time Rural Metro. Weedsport volunteers come out if it is a serious condition, if not Rural Metro is called directly, they usually come without sirens and they transport the resident to Auburn Memorial Hospital. The only time any body goes to Syracuse is if they are a veteran and they are utilizing the VA services.
Mr. Giancreco: How many staff do you have?
Ms. Didio: 28 to 33, it would be up to staff as to whether or not they would want to travel into Auburn. I have some that come from Auburn but then there are others that come from Cato, Port Byron and Weedsport area as well.
Mr. Bartolotta: Could you explain the services you provide, is this a nursing home?
Ms. Didio: No, it is an adult care facility. The level of care for an adult care facility is much less intensive than a nursing home. We provide supervision where a nursing home provides hands on care. It is minimal assistance, we provide meals, laundry, linen services, housekeeping. Residents are fairly independent, a lot of them take the SCAT van into Auburn now to shop, for medical appointments unassisted.
Ms. Michelman:Thank you. Staff comments.
Mr. Selvek: As mentioned this is a for a development of a 60 bed adult care facility, approximately 40,948 square feet as shown on the preliminary plans. The Design Review Committee did meet earlier this month to review the preliminary plans and had some concerns with fire access as well as the intended buffering. Changes were made to the plans. The addition of a gravel drive around the rear for fire access as well emergency access and a series of concrete walks ways within the court way that lead from the emergency access doors to this gravel drive.
In addition to that the plans do reflect the schematic need for the additional vegetation to meet buffers as landscape requirements that have been included on the plans. The plans also provided area for storm water drainage, storm water drainage will be collected via catch basins in and around the parking lot and building and then placed underground into the storm water detention area. As mentioned this site is a R-1 zone it will require a use variance for the proposed use. This basically is our Corporation Counsel will require a coordinated review under SEQRA in that either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board take a lead agency status, distribute the plans to the other board and receive their comments and proceeding accordingly to their comments.
Staff recommends that giving the Planning Board to act as lead agency as it has on many other projects. In your packets you will find a resolution for the lead agency declaration. Furthermore, staff is comfortable with the direction that these plans are going and does recommend preliminary approval for these plans. Again preliminary approval essentially tells the developer that they are headed in the right direction, that the Planning Board likes what they see to date and giving them the encourage to move on and continue to a develop a final set of site plans for consideration by this board.
Mr. Breanick: This property is going to be owned by Berry First Family Limited Trust, correct?
Mr. Smith: No, that parcel is being purchased also.
Mr. Breanick: I don’t see any division lines between that and the front on Clark Street and George Kuschaney there, is that part of the project?
Mr. Smith: No. It is the parcel right here (points to sketch) basically extension of Clark Street.
Mr. Breanick: So what would be the problem to shift the access over farther there from Mr. Weir’s property need be as well as the buffering. I think it would behoove you to talk to the neighbors before the final site plan.
Mr. Smith: Certainly.
Mr. Breanick: Thank you.
Ms. Michelman: I have a few questions as well. I am not sure I understood the parking issue. Can you explain that a little more?
Mr. Selvek: The parking issue right now as defined by Code is required to have 90 spaces based on the category that this type of development falls into. Currently right now the use space on their facility in Weedsport dictates what they will actually need 41 parking spaces. Likely what will happen is we will develop the plan further and prior to final approval an area variance would have to be granted to not develop those parking spaces.
Ms. Michelman: OK. My other question is in regard to the traffic issue. Do you have any opinion?
Officer Weed: Not at all.
Ms. Michelman: I don’t know how any of the other board members feel but while we did just approve something conditional on ZBA approval, I am not sure that I am comfortable on this project giving preliminary site plan approval at this time without having had full public notice and opportunity for the public to be heard at the ZBA meeting. That is just my opinion and I just want to see how other members of the board feel.
Mr. Giancreco: I concur.
Mr. Breanick: I agree.
Ms. Fudo: At this level, this is in its infancy.
Ms. Michelman: That is how I feel. There are issues that have not been fully addressed at this time. I am not sure I am comfortable making a determination for a preliminary approval, especially when we are talking about changing the zoning in an R-1 district.
Mr. Selvek: In the past I do agree with Madam Chair and the feelings of the board. We have typically looked at the requirements for Zoning Board use variance granted prior to final approval granted by the Planning Board for site plan. Given my limited history with the Planning Board, I am not sure how that applies to preliminary approval given that preliminary approval essentially tells the applicant that they are on track. I can understand the concerns the board has. One reason that we are bringing this, is that the applicant is seeking funding through a state source. Part of the application process is due on the 23rd of February and in an effort to essentially strengthen their application if they come before the board to seek this approval and I
understand it puts the board in a tough position, we have had discussions with Design Review Committee and Corporation Counsel on how we can approach this and one other concern that came up was with regards to the sub-division they specifically want to apply the use variance to the front portion of the parcel. They can’t do that until they sub-divide and they can’t sub-divide until they have the use variance. I will respect the will of the board and I would say that preliminary approval at this point in time does not commit the board to move forward until all of your concerns and questions are addressed, but allows the applicant to move forward with seeking their funding sources so the project can come to fruition.
Mr. Smith: As City counsel brought up at the first hearing with regards to approval of ZBA, we were before the ZBA for the same kind of issue so we ask City counsel for the record state what the approval of ZBA.
Mr. Selvek: What happened at ZBA meeting they did receive approval based on the plan the submitted at that time. The issue is the improper notification when out to the neighbors and as the Chair had mentioned the neighbors did not receive a chance to comment on the use variance itself.
Mr. Darrow: Madam Chair, I am Ed Darrow, Vice Chair of the Zoning Board and I just wanted to enlighten you that yes we did move forward with it, but we did not have a single neighbor show up to our hearing.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you, appreciate that.
Ms. Fudo: My concern is that in light of the fact that this agency is requesting a zoning variance I think every attempt should be made to satisfy the adjoining property owners.
Ms. Michelman: There have been a number of issues raised concerning the traffic, transportation, I think they should be addressed.
What we have done in the past on motions that we thought could possibly fail rather than take the motion and leave the applicant with a failed project, we would poll the board to see how they would vote if we voted on it tonight and it seems like this board does desire to table this to a later date, we can do that, rather than to allow the motion to fall.
Mr. Smith: We appreciate that.
Ms. Michelman: We will poll the board and if anyone has any questions or comments. Indicate your feelings on this.
Mr. Breanick: In the discussions we have had so far tonight, they have stated that they would be willing to do additional buffering, possibly move back some as long as it stays below the 10 acre limit. I believe part of this property has been un-used, vacant for a number of years and if they accommodate the neighbors I think this would be a good use for this property.
Mr. Giancreco: I think we should table it for more information for the property owners and several other concerns.
Ms. Fudo: Had things happened the way they were suppose to happen with the Zoning Board last week by giving their approval, and comments from the property owners, in order to not hold this up, I would be in favor of this project, but I have those concerns. I would have to say no if we were to vote on the preliminary approval.
Mr. Bartolotta: I think I would be more comfortable if the zoning were changed before it came to us, if we were to table it today when would they have to wait until next month?
Mr. Selvek: The Zoning Board is scheduled to hear this on February 13th at which point in time, they would come back before the Planning Board at the March 7th meeting. At that point, I am not sure what that will do to the applicant,
Ms. Fudo: Could we hold
Ms. Michelman: A special meeting?
Ms. Fudo: I don’t feel comfortable tonight without have zoning approval.
Ms. Michelman: Let me ask the applicant to you believe if you were given approval by the Zoning Board would that be significant in your application to assist you in getting funding.
Mr. Lane: I am Greg Lane, I am the attorney on behalf of DePaul in connection with the project. I am not sure the applications are competitive. Anything you can do to help your chances for the applicant is always advisable. I can’t answer you clearly whether or not it would be absolutely fatal, it would help to get the preliminary approval and have that indicated in our application. It will certainly be necessary to show that we have the right through either the appropriate zoning or a variance, you know, to send our application in. Certainly don’t expect to get full site plan approval but I just can’t answer it one way or the other for you. You just try to do as much as you can because this is a competitive process out there for these dollars and without that
this project will not get built.
Ms. Michelman: If we were to hold a special meeting shortly before that February 23rd date because it would like have to be February 20th or something like that.
Mr. Lane: That would be great, I appreciate and understand the gesture that would be from the members of the Planning Board it certainly would be appreciated and we would welcome it but I also understand that every body’s time is valuable and that is another night that you all have to be away from your home and family.
Ms. Michelman: It would be two weeks from today.
Mr. Breanick: Would it be possible to do a joint meeting with the Zoning Board?
Ms. Michelman: That is next Tuesday.
Mr. Breanick: Need 10 days notice, right?
Ms. Michelman: Yes and consider the issues here also the time to develop this a little bit more too. If the ZBA was doing it tomorrow we still wouldn’t want to be together so quickly some of the questions that we raised would not be answered.
Mr. Lane: One reason we haven’t had a community meeting with the neighbors really has been the shortness of time as most staff knows and some other folks know here, this parcel only became available in December a site that is subject to the grant program that the Department of Health and Community Renewal has for projects such as this. That is why we really hadn’t had the ideal scenario where we could have had a community meeting and talk to people. That doesn’t mean we don’t want to do it, we are absolutely, ready, willing and able to sit down with the neighbors and discuss site plan issues, mandatory measures, the placement of landscaping, buffers, the building, etc. etc. Obviously because we didn’t have any neighbors at the Zoning Board hearing we didn’t know who the
concerned parties were, I am sure it will change on Tuesday night and I am sure after that meeting, hopefully, we will be able to work with the neighbors and arrive at a project that will be great for the community, great for DePaul, great for the client and the facility and all the neighbors. We think this would be a great project for that area and as one of the board members pointed out this is a poster child for a hardship case for a use variance. Will we will sit down with neighbors and other stakeholders in the process to make this a great project.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. Would the board be willing to go with a special meeting on February 20th or some where around there?
Mr. Breanick: I think we should try to help this developer in this situation. Get the input of neighbors prior to that and their needs are satisfied.
Mr. Giancreco: I still say table it.
Ms. Michelman: Table it and come back on February 20th for preliminary approval.
Mr. Bartolotta: Yes.
Ms. Fudo: Yes.
Ms. Michelman: Motion to table, it would be the preliminary site plan resolution until a special meeting can be held on February 20th.
Mr. Breanick: Madam Chair, as our regular secretary is not here, maybe we could have Planning Board staff their number, house numbers and the names of the people that are here tonight as well as those within the 400 foot area of this development so they can be contacted.
Ms. Michelman: They will be required to be notified. Thank you.
Mr. Breanick made the motion, seconded by Ms. Fudo.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion carried.
I do believe we can still do the motion to be the lead agency for SEQRA action. Is there a motion for that? Motion by Mr. Breanick and seconded by Mr. Bartolotta
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion carried. We have tabled the motion but we will bring it back on February 20th that meeting will be contingent upon ZBA approval. If it is not approved by ZBA then it will be a moot point. We will bring this before this board again and hopefully give you enough time to prepare your application should we get to that point.
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you for coming in.
Sketch Plan presentation for the proposed changes to the Commercial Plaza located on Grant Avenue in the C-3 Zoning District. Dunn & Sgromo Engineering – Project Engineers.
___________________________________________________________
Ms. Michelman: Next item on the agenda that comes under another matters that may properly come before the board. There are three additional issues. One is a sketch plan presentation for the proposed changes to the Commercial Plaza located on Grant Avenue in the C-3 Zoning District, Dunn & Sgromo Engineers are the project engineers.
Mr. Marr: My name is Rich Marr, I am with Dunn & Sgromo Engineers for the HDL Properties Group. Last year in June this Planning Board granted site plan approval for commercial development on Grant Avenue, Auburn Plaza is what we are calling it. At that time we had a building that was 153 feet long, there is a small patio on the south side for what at that time was going to be a Quinzo’s and on the north side we had two-way traffic around the building. What has happened since that approval was granted was that the developer had to go through the process of signing some people that wanted to move into the building. What they have found is three tenants so far, one which is Pannera Bread and they want to be on the north side of the building and they want a drive thru. Due to that
change your Planning Department thought it would be a good idea to come in front of you folks again and get your opinion on this and get a revised site plan approval.
Now the distance that we have on this drawing, we moved the building south so that there is no longer a patio on the Walgreen’s side of this building. That gave us some additional I believe it was 10 feet more on the north side of the building, but then we increased the building by 12 feet, now the building is 165 feet long still 100 feet deep and Pannera Bread who wants to be on this north end they also want a drive thru. The second change that we made to this was to change the circulation pattern around the building, it is no longer two-way traffic. What we are suggesting that from this corner by Walgreen’s this be one way traffic around the building, that will allow people that want to go through the drive thru lane, go through the drive thru lane and people that just want to go around
the building would complete the circulation around the building and leave the site.
The traffic would then be coming against them into this entrance off of Grant Avenue (points to sketch) would be encouraged by what we are proposing is stripping to simply turn into this parking lot and then they can circulate through this parking lot and back onto Grant Avenue. Those are the changes that we have made to the site, again I talked to Planning and felt that you folks should have a stab at this before we got the new site plan. I understand that tonight is just a discussion and pending what happens tonight we will advertise for a public hearing and hopefully that will be at the March 6th meeting.
Ms. Michelman: Ok, thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Breanick: One time when you were before us there was a third building back there. Is there a pond or something there now?
Mr. Marr: At one time, two years ago, they had a grand plan for this entire site which included to have an interested party that might have wanted a restaurant there, gone away, so there is no longer a plan for a building there.
Mr. Breanick: What about the coffee shop they were talking about?
Mr. Marr: They are still trying to find a user for this parcel but it is very small.
Mr. Breanick: How would the traffic flow be if someone developed that part?
Mr. Marr: That is a good question. At one time we had a driveway right here, my feeling now is we are trying to develop it, as you can see the thru drive right here (points to sketch), we are trying to develop access to this site off that thru drive. But again there is no interest in that parcel at this time, so it is not even being considered right now. There are considerations on the table right now to increase the parking. They don’t need it, we meet the Code for parking for this site.
Mr. Giancreco: The drive here is still going to be in existence in front?
Mr. Marr: This drive here, yes. That was an earlier requirement of this board because of the Walgreen’s continued this access right through to the Taco Bell and this exit.
Ms. Michelman: Any other questions? Are there any additional traffic concerns?
Officer Weed: No.
Ms. Michelman: I guess we will see you on March 6th.
Mr. Marr: A question to Steve, do I need to submit any thing else or are we good just bring the same plan on March 6th? We don’t need another application?
Mr. Selvek: I will consult with our Design Review Committee and get back to you on that.
Mr. Marr: OK, thank you.
Declaration of Lead Agency status for SEQRA review for the proposed rehabilitation of the Wegman Piano Building located at 9 – 11 Logan Street.
__________________________________________________________
Ms. Michelman: Next is declaration in your packet of lead agency for the proposed rehabilitation of the Wegman Piano building located at 9 –11 Logan Street. I will ask for staff comments on that.
Mr. Selvek: As the board is aware, I believe the board is aware that the Wegman Piano building at 9 – 11 Logan Street was a recipient of a nearly $1.8 million grant from Restore new York Program for the rehabilitation of that into condos or mixed use area. That in part made possible by the board’s review of that area and the establishment of the overlay zone for that area.
As a requirement for that grant and the final approval from the Empire State Development Corporation they are requiring that the plan undergo SHIPO review and approval and well as SEQRA review and approval. It appears that there are three involved agencies for a SEQRA review, the Planning Board being one, SHIPO being the second and actually because of the way overlay zone is set up the City Council has to give their final approval on the site plan. What we are asking tonight although you may not have a formal application, the owner of the building, Matteo Bartolotta, has asked that we move forward and basically set the process in motion and establish lead agency for the SEQRA review and follow along with submittal of the plans. The architect for the project is preparing a packet to go to SHIPO that
should go out tomorrow or Thursday. At that time I will also receive a set of plans for distribution for next month’s Planning Board meeting.
Ms. Michelman: I have a question of Mr. Fusco as to procedure whether we can make this motion without having had a public hearing and public notice to the neighbors.
Mr. Fusco: Yes you don’t need a public hearing or notice to any one for a resolution to espouse your intent to become lead agency. What we will do here in this case, you will make the resolution tonight and we will actually hold the resolution and the letter for a few days until we proceed with the Environmental Assessment Form and the materials that Steve will be getting from SHIPO and we will actually circulate those once we have them so that the 30 days for other involved agencies to respond will begin not today or tomorrow as normally it would, but later in the week when ever we can get a full packet to send out.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you. Questions before we make a motion? Motion made by Mr. Giancreco and seconded by Mr. Breanick.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Ms. Fudo
Mr. Bartolotta - abstained
Mr. Giancreco
Mr. Breanick
Ms. Michelman
Ms. Michelman: Motion carried.
New requirements for Planning Board Training.
____________________________________________________________
Ms. Michelman: The next item I asked Steve to put this on the agenda is a requirement for training for Planning Board, Zoning Board members, it is a new law that has come out requiring training and unless the City Council passes a resolution to free of those requirements, then we all are required to have 4 hours of training and so I thought we should discuss that.
Mr. Selvek: This is a new state law that has passed that requires 4 hours of training for Planning Board and Zoning Board members every two years.
Mr. Fusco: Two hours a year.
Mr. Selvek: As Laurie just mentioned City Council can pass a resolution which essentially frees you from this training. My personal feelings on it the training although is somewhat time sensitive, it may be helpful because it is a variety of different training that you can attend. There is no real structure as to what training you have to go, it is kind of continuing education for Planning Board members and I would like to essentially get the opinions of board members whether or not they would be interested in attending training, whether it be SEQRA review or whatever it might be or if they feel that the time committed to it is worthwhile at this point so I can approach the City Manager and Corporation Counsel about the way the Council may want to move forward.
Mr. Breanick: Steve is this training to be done in house?
Mr. Selvek: The way the law is structured is very open, it can be something in house, the County does some training seminars a few times a year for an hour or two. There may be some on line courses that could be available. It is really open ended to what defines training.
Mr. Breanick: Typically since the 1980’s, early 1990’s the budget was taken away from the Planning Board and given to the Planning Department so we have no budget. So if we chose to go over SU or any other places, there are no monies for that, travel, training or any thing like that.
Mr. Fusco: Right now the County is going to be putting together a program where I think they are going be offered 4 or maybe 5 hours about once a month throughout the balance of 2007, the tuition for which will be free. There may be 6 that are scheduled, most of them will take place in Auburn, the SEQRA will take place in Cato, it will be tuition free.
Mr. Breanick: Thank you.
Mr. Fusco: Also something Steve and I have talked about is putting something on ourselves.
Mr. Breanick: Over all I think you never have enough education, you can always learn something new.
Mr. Giancreco: I took 4 hours at the Council Chambers at the Cayuga County Office Building a couple years back. Is that going to be the same thing or extension of that?
Mr. Selvek: I think the program that the County is offering will be very similar to those types of training. Taking a SEQRA class two years ago may have changed because of case law or whatever. There definitely some benefit to keeping up on this.
Ms. Michelman: Any one else have any questions? I think to ask for a wavier for such a small amount of hours, it does benefit us to have more knowledge of the process.
Mr. Selvek: I will put together a comprehensive list of what is available and move forward.
Ms. Michelman: Thank you.
Mr. Breanick: Can we get a couple updates? One of course if the Connector Road. The other is status of a vacant seat, nothing has been done since Mr. Rogalski passed away.
Mr. Selvek: First on the Connector Road, I am in the dark. Right now my understanding is that is the same place it has been for the last 1½ years, negotiations with the State as to how they are going to proceed once they get to North Street. Until they come to some type of consensus we will probably be in a holding pattern.
With regards to filling the vacancy on the board is actually couple of issues that I have been in the process the last three months trying to work with the Mayor and Council and Interim City Manager to move forward. However, we do have a vacancy, if any one has suggestions outside of being on the record if some one is interested in it, I will be more than open to those to bring forward to the Interim City Manager as well as the Mayor and Council. In addition Laurie actually has been nice enough to stay on and continue to serve although her appointment has expired at the end of 2006, because we are waiting for again the Mayor to re-appoint. It is one of those issues, I would ask the board if they would voice their concerns to the Interim City Manager as well as the Mayor.
Mr. Breanick: I think Laurie has done a good job, I commend her for the way she runs the meetings. If the Mayor doesn’t appoint a new person as of the first of the year, that person is on for the rest of the year as far as the appointment of the vacancy that is solely a mayoral appointment, ratified by the Council or City Manager.
Mr. Selvek: Actually the appointment to the Board is the Mayor’s with Council approval, that is the way it is set up.
Mr. Breanick: I just think it behooves us in the event we get into a situation like Mr. Bartolotta abstaining and if another member wasn’t here
Mr. Selvek: I agree with you.
Ms. Michelman: Mr. Breanick made motion and seconded by Ms. Fudo to have Mayor make an appointment to the vacancy on the board. All in favor. Motion carried.
The next Planning Board meeting will be a special meeting to be held on February 20th at 6:30 p.m. and the full Planning Board meeting will be March 6th at 6:30 p.m.
Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Bartolotta and seconded by Mr. Breanick. All in favor.
Thank you all for coming in.
| 
