Minutes of the January 8, 2003 Meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: Harold Fabinsky, Chairman
John Bernard
Lorraine Biryla
Paul Bodden
William McNamara
Phillip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate Member
EXCUSED: Michael McGuire
OTHERS PRESENT: Joseph Campion, Building Inspector
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
The Chairman called the meeting to order by stating that if anyone appearing before the Board has a family, financial or business relationship with any member of the Board, it is incumbent upon that person to make it known under State law and the Town Code of Ethics.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Paul Gregorie for his service to the Town of Orchard Park as a Planning Board member. He also thanked Mr. John Bernard for his leadership during the past year as the Planning Board Chairman. Chairman Fabinsky then stated that Paul Bodden, who had been the alternate member, has now advanced to the position of a full voting member. Mr. Eugene Majchrzak was introduced as the new alternate member.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting of November 13, 2002 was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received a copy.
Mr. Murray noted a correction to be made to the minutes as follows; page four (4) second paragraph, first sentence should read, “Mr. Murray inquired if there is a way to know or to restrict having an individual that had been released from prison as a tenant.
A motion was made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mrs. Biryla, to accept the minutes of the November 13, 2002 meeting as corrected.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
Harold Fabinsky AYE
John Bernard AYE
Lorraine Biryla AYE
Paul Bodden AYE
William McNamara AYE
Phillip Murray AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. P.B. File #7-02, Urology Associates of Western New York, 500 Sterling Drive, Zoned I-1. Requesting Planning Board approval of lighting.
APPEARANCE: Mark Woodcock, Richmar Electric, Inc.
Mr. Woodcock reviewed and explained the lighting plans that had been submitted. He told the members that additional decorative lighting is being requested on the exterior of the existing building. The Board had approved all existing lighting previously.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Murray, to APPROVE the building light fixtures based on the submitted plans as follows:
1. There are to be no more than sixteen (16) decorative wall lights, metal halide Prairie wall model #700WB, with a 70-watt maximum.
2. There will be two (2) main building entrance decorative lights, 100 watts maximum each, metal halide Prairie II, model #630 per the submitted plan dated September 12, 2002.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
Harold Fabinsky AYE
John Bernard AYE
Lorraine Biryla AYE
Paul Bodden AYE
William McNamara AYE
Phillip Murray AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. File #20-00, Bierworth-Reidman Homes, 41.5 acres of vacant land, east side of Orchard Park Road, south of Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board recommendation on rezoning from B-2 to R-3 to develop a 290-unit apartment complex. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/21/2000.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Ray Stapell, Attorney
Mr. David Reidman, petitioner
Mr. Aaron Gagne, BME Associates
Mr. Reidman gave a brief history of the proposed plan, stating that the plans have been refined and adjusted based on previous comments from the members of the Planning Board. The proposal is for 296 “garden” apartments, with the main access branching off from the existing Tops/Benderson Plaza entrance on Orchard Park Road. Additional improvements to the site would include a clubhouse with a management office, a swimming pool, exercise room, business center and a lounge
area. Also located throughout the apartment complex would be detached garage buildings at a ratio of one space per three residences. Trash and recyclable items would be managed in refuse rooms, as there will be no dumpsters on the property. In addition to this, one building would be reserved for maintenance supplies.
Mr. Reidman indicated on the site map where the detention area would be and the parking for the units. A photograph of the style of buildings being proposed was presented. Mr. Reidman stated that the units would be one or two bedrooms, with the possibility of a larger unit with a den. All of the units would have private entries with no common hallways, covered porches, clapboard siding and architectural details. Square footage of the units would be 800-sq. ft. for a one bedroom and 1,100 sq. ft. for a two-bedroom. Each apartment would have its own laundry room and full kitchen with all appliances. Mr. Reidman indicated the proposed lighting on the proposed site plan, stating that an eighteen-foot high colonial type fixture is being proposed with cut-off luminaries.
Mr. Murray stated that Orchard Park Road, with the recent institution of sidewalks, is becoming one of the main entrances into Orchard Park. He asked the petitioner how people entering Orchard Park would view the buildings. Mr. Reidman stated that the buildings are mirror images in front and back making any view the same. Mr. Reidman and Mr. Gagne further noted that the detention area had been moved back to the east to allow the large area of vegetation along Orchard Park to be undisturbed. Mr. Gagne stated that the wetlands would not be intruded upon, noting that they offered a good aesthetic value and function to the site. Mr. Reidman explained how “drive-by” and “curb appeal” is a key factor in attracting people to his project.
Mrs. Biryla confirmed that the photo presented to the members represented a smaller footprint of what is proposed, but that the
elements of design would remain the same. Mr. Reidman stated the units would be leased for a minimum of one year, and that it would cost
approximately $700 per month to lease a one bedroom unit, approximately $900 per month for a two bedroom and approximately $1,000 per month for a 1,300-sq. ft. unit. Maintenance would be managed by the complex, with some functions contracted outside. Mrs. Biryla confirmed that the petitioner has two similar complexes in Rochester, New York. Between 30% and 35% of the units in the proposed complex would be one-bedroom units, 50% would be two- bedroom units and 15% would be two-bedroom units with a den. It is estimated that the project would add approximately fifteen students to the Orchard Park School District.
Mr. Bernard stated he appreciates the petitioner adjusting his plans to accommodate the Board’s previous concerns and established that the petitioner would be responsible for maintaining the detention basin area located on the site. Although the DEIS includes studies on the impacts of traffic, lighting and noise, Mr. Bernard requested that the petitioner comment on these topics further. Mr. Reidman does not believe traffic will cause a significant impact based on his experience with his other properties. The residents at those properties, on the average, are 30% – 40% retired or “empty nesters” and for the most part use the highway during off peak hours. Mr. Reidman told the members that a consultant would be hired to aid with the lighting plan to be presented. Mr. Gagne noted that presently this commercially zoned property has the potential to build-out roughly 430,000-sq. ft. of commercial space. The traffic flow for this presently allowed commercial usage would far exceed the traffic projected for the residential rezoning usage.
Mr. Bernard established that approximately 18.37 acres of the site would remain undisturbed, that a 7.75-acre conservation easement would be put in place along Smokes Creek and that the build out period for the project would be approximately 2-1/2 – 3 years. Taxes to the Town of Orchard Park from this site would be based on an approximate assessed value of twelve million dollars. The typical household income of a tenant would be $40,000 to $50,000.
Mr. Bodden confirmed with the petitioner that all of the buildings would be uniform in color and siding.
Mr. McNamara’s questions established that if this site were to be developed commercially, it would lack enough road frontage to be viable.
Chairman Fabinsky determined that the anticipated population of the proposed project (450) would increase the total population of Orchard Park population by 1-1/2%.
Mr. Majchrzak noted that three units would have some view of the rear of the Tops plaza buildings. Mr. Reidman stated buffering would be implemented to diminish the view from these units.
Mr. Fabinsky established that noise intrusion from delivery trucks at the Tops plaza site would not be a problem to the apartment complex residents, as the distance would be approximately 250’ to 300’ and buffering would be in place. Mr. Reidman described how the three buildings in question would be situated and stated he does not foresee a problem.
Mr. Bernard made a motion, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky to recommend the Town Board APPROVE the requested rezoning from B-2 to R-3 based on the following stipulations and reasons:
1. As the project is a Type I SEQR action, the Town Board will be completing the SEQR process with an FEIS and Findings.
2. Fees shall be paid in accordance with Section 144-70C of the Town Code prior to publication of the Public Hearing Notice.
3. This recommendation is contingent upon the applicant completing the project as proposed on the preliminary development plans and using the architectural style presented to this Board. The site will revert to its original zoning classification if the project is not completed per Section 144-67 of the Town Code.
4. Based upon the DEIS information, this project provides a transition zone from the existing commercial plaza to the residential area to the south.
5. Recreational areas are provided by this project and recreational fees will be generated if developed.
6. Traffic, lighting and noise have been demonstrated to be less than that of a fully developed commercial property.
7. Green space will be approximately 80%, which is greatly above the amount of green space typically found in a commercial area.
8. A conservation easement shall be granted to the Town for approximately eight (8) acres along the Smokes Creek tributary.
9. There will be minimum impacts on the wetlands, per the preliminary plans.
10. The school impact according to the DEIS is reported to be minimal.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION WAS AS FOLLOWS WITH MEMBER COMMENTS:
Mr. Murray voted AYE, stating that the project goes a long way to stabilizing our front entry to our Town. It simultaneously prevents the opportunity for the continuation of a less desirable type of commercial project that would likely at some point be inconsistent with the idea of the smooth transition spoken to.
Mr. McNamara voted AYE, concurring for basically the same reasons Mr. Murray spoke of. He said this would provide a good transition as one drives into
Orchard Park. The plan provides an alternative for the empty nester to stay in Orchard Park. The developer has demonstrated that there are community benefits with the proposed residential development. This project will buffer the new commercial development at the corner with the residents to the south.
Chairman Fabinsky voted AYE stating that he does have concerns regarding the added population but feels that this is a good boundary to what could become profuse commercial sprawl. A good view shed and street presentation are seen with these plans. There are serious issues in this town for housing people as they become empty nesters and get older, losing both their enthusiasm and flexibility for gardening and mowing lawns.
Mr. Bodden voted AYE, for most of the same reasons, stating he believed this would be a great transition area and he believes the large amount of green space would be a great asset to the corridor being developed as the entrance to our Town. Mr. Bodden further noted that the impact to the local schools has been reported to be very minimal and that local jobs will be created, increased business for merchants along with the tax base being increased.
Mrs. Biryla voted AYE, stating she does not feel this property should be used for commercial development because of the lack of road space and topography. She also feels that this is a great transition to the “front door” of our main street. Mr. Biryla stated she had been a Board Member when a mobile home project had come before the board and she was thrilled to see this project and found the plans to be extremely satisfactory. She also feels that this is a good tax base for our Town and believes that our services (i.e. our pools or recreation) will not be taxed any further from these residents.
Mr. Bernard voted AYE, stating that when the rezoning is done he knows the petitioner will be back in front of the Planning Board for the development plan review and at that time the Board will have the opportunity to further review the details.
The Chairman asked Mr. Majchrzak if he had any thoughts to contribute. Mr. Majchrzak stated that he did not.
The vote on the motion being UNANIMOUS the motion is hereby PASSED.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
DATED: 1/10/03 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: 1/13/03 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Harold Fabinsky
Planning Board Chairman