Minutes of the June 8, 2005 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lorraine Biryla, Chairman
John Bernard
Harold Fabinsky
William McNamara
Philip Murray Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: Michael McGuire
Paul Bodden
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah desJardins, Planning Coordinator
David Holland, Building Inspector
Thomas Ostrander, Junior Engineer
Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
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. She noted that Alternate Board Member Gene Majchrzak would be voting this evening as a full member, as regular Board Members Mr. McGuire and Mr. Bodden are not present.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the May 11, 2005 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Murray made the following adjustment to the minutes; page 13, line two, delete the word “general ledger” and insert “site plan addendum”. Also, at the bottom of this page it notes, “He told Mr. Recoon that he liked the Starbucks built in nearby East Aurora…” This should read that “he liked the architecture used in the new buildings in East Aurora…”
Mr. Murray made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky to accept the minutes of the May 11, 2005 meeting as adjusted.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
1. P.B. File #11-05, David Smith, 15 Errington Terrace, SBL#161.11-2-13.14, Zoned R-3. Requesting Home Occupation in order to operate a small gun business out of the residence. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/16/05.
APPEARANCE: Mr. David Smith
Mr. Smith told the Board that he desires to operate as a vendor at gun shows. Mr. Smith explained to the Board that a gun dealer’s license allows him to sell at gun shows, but requires that he provide a residential address indicating where the gun inventory is stored. He anticipates that approximately 85% of his sales will take place at these shows. The remaining sales will occur at his residence without advertising or signage. He will have long guns for sale such as rifles, shotguns and assault weapons. Ammunition would not be for sale. At this present time he does not intend to apply for a license to sell pistols, but he has applied for a personal pistol permit.
Mr. Smith noted that he has been licensed to sell guns at shows on three occasions. These licenses were issued in the states of Florida and Kansas. He told the Board that there were no problems, revocations or penalties that occurred in these states. The out-of-state licenses expired and his re-locating occurred with his being transferred by his employer. Mr. Smith told the Board that the gun inventory would be stored in a gun safe at his home. The inventory totals approximately 25 long guns.
Mr. Murray noted that a home occupation must be carried on within the residence. Mr. Smith has indicated that 85% of the sales would be carried on elsewhere. He questioned if the request before the Board is a permitted use. Attorney Michael Wolf noted that a request of this type has never been dealt with before. He believes that the request does not fit the “Home Occupation” ordinance and feels that if a business is not primarily conducted at the residence, then the applicant should find a storefront. Mr. Smith noted that this would not be an option because of the financial burden he would incur. He also told the Board that he could privately sell the guns. However, it is his desire to have sales take place at a gun show so that tracking of the weapons sold can take place with the ATF. He further explained that to validate having a Federal Firearms License, guns must be sold at a show and elsewhere.
The members discussed if the request being made qualifies as “home
occupation”. Mr. McNamara compared the request to an individual selling a collectible item, such as baseball cards at a residence, with the majority of the sales taking place at a show. The members also discussed their concerns regarding the storage of the gun inventory at the residence. Mr. Smith noted that he would agree not to have handguns for sale.
Mr. Bernard stated that he would like Attorney’s Leonard Berkowitz and Michael Wolf to review this request.
Mr. Murray made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to TABLE the review of this request pending the Board’s review of the “Home Occupation” ordinance.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
2. P.B. File #16-05, Moe’s Southwest Grill, Crossroads Plaza, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board approval of outside seating.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Brad DeGrazia, franchise owner
Mr. DeGrazia told the Board that patrons have been sitting outside on the sidewalk consuming purchases from Moe’s. Noting that this is an unsafe situation, Mr. DeGrazia is requesting permission to install seasonal outdoor seating. He distributed a sketch plan with information regarding this request for the members to review. He proposes to locate 3 to 4 tables and 12 chairs in a fenced in area on the west side of the building. The proposed fenced in area will have a gate that will not allow entry from the outside. Patrons will only be able to enter directly into the fenced-in area from inside Moe’s. However, they will be able to exit through the gate. The tables would be 2-1/2 feet x 1-1/2 feet in size. The chairs will be approximately 18” in size.
Several members noted that the area appears too narrow to accommodate the proposal. Mr. Fabinsky told Mr. DeGrazia that he would like to be provided with the exact amount of room needed to implement his proposal. He told Mr. DeGrazia that a common problem with outdoor seating is that after being approved for a
specific number, that number of seats grows. Mr. DeGrazia assured the Board that this would not occur and that the usage would be seasonal. The measurements he provided will only allow 12 chairs.
Mr. Murray noted if outside seating were allowed six additional parking spaces would be required by the code. Moe’s was originally approved without having the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Bernard questioned if the parking at the rear of the building was approved in the original site plan. He believes that during the review of the project there had been noise concerns with relation to the “Hammocks” apartment complex and that parking at the rear was not approved.
The Chairman stated that she found the traffic at this corner to be very busy, noting that the Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s restaurants contribute to the situation. She expressed her concerns regarding customer safety and did not feel the fence would be effective in keeping patrons within the outdoor eating area.
The Board members concluded that they would like to re-visit the site and review the request further. Mr. DeGrazia is requested to submit a scale drawing of the layout for the proposed outdoor seating and to provide this to the Board before the July 6, 2005 work session.
The Chairman made a MOTION, second by Mr. Bernard, to TABLE the request.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Ostrander, based on his professional experience, told the Board that there would not be adequate room in the outdoor seating area for the number of tables and chairs being proposed.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED TO TABLE.
3. P.B. File #18-05, Lowe’s, Crossroads Center, Zoned B-2. Requesting Planning Board review of outside display.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Mark Sandle, Sales Manager
This case had been approved for outside display by the Planning Board on February 9, 2005, with the stipulation that it be reviewed on a yearly basis.
Mr. Sandle explained that the sales projected for this store have far exceeded what was anticipated. Therefore, he is requesting additional area for outdoor storage. He presented the members with a sketch plan and told the members that four, forty-five foot storage trailers are currently being used to house additional inventory at the rear of the building. These are not visible from the road. He noted that most of the outside display would occur April 1st through August 31st. Items such as mulch will be removed or sold out, with lumber, grills and tractors remaining into the fall. During the winter months there will be no outside display at the front of the building. Tables will be dismantled as much as possible; sheds will stay, along with any left over trailers. After November 1st leftover items will be stored in an enclosed storage area.
The members expressed concerns regarding the aesthetics of having the additional storage. Mr. Sandle told the Board that he would be willing to reconfigure the outside storage, use fencing and/or landscaping to aid with the Board’s visual concerns and indicate the property line on a revised sketch plan. Traffic patterns at the plaza were discussed with Mr. Sandle. It was learned that two additional Lowe’s stores would be opening in Western New York. Mr. Sandle believes that the sales at this location will decrease by approximately 15% when these stores open. It was also noted that an unknown number of parking spaces would be lost if additional outside storage is allowed.
Mr. Ostrander noted that the trailers behind the structure would need to be reviewed for compliance with the fire safety codes.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to TABLE the review of this request pending the following:
1. The applicant is to re-submit the proposed outdoor storage plan indicating where the property lines are located.
2. The fire code is to be reviewed with regards to the trailers parked at the rear of the building.
3. The applicant is to quantify the number of parking spaces being lost during the “summer” months.
4. The applicant is to show what will be stored outside during the winter months.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED TO TABLE.
4. P.B. File #17-05, Liberty Wood & Construction, Inc., 3300 North Benzing Road, Zoned I-1. Requesting a Change in Use from cold storage to manufacturing space. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 6/1/05.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Russell Walsh, owner
Mr. Bill Mertz, potential buyer of building
The members’ questions established that there would be fewer employees, no odors and an occasional sales person visiting Mr. Mertz with no more than two visitors per day. Mr. Mertz has a business that molds rubber parts. Building Inspector David Holland verified that the site has 13 parking spaces and is in compliance with the parking code. There is the potential to add 10 more spaces. A variance was granted to locate five of these future spaces in the front yard. It was also verified that the building is ADA compliant.
Mr. Majchrzak made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Murray, to RECOMMEND that the Town Board APPROVE the requested Change in Use at 3300 North Benzing Road from cold storage to manufacturing space based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is a Type II SEQR Action and therefore no determination of significance is required.
2. The parking as noted is mandatory.
3. There will be only (1) dumpster.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
5. P.B. File #31-04, Benderson Development Co., Inc., 3165 Southwestern Boulevard, Zoned B-2. Requesting a Building Permit to construct a 7,560 sq.ft. restaurant/retail building. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 10/20/04. Tabled by the Planning Board on 5/11/05.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Eric Recoon, Benderson Development
The Chairman verified that Benderson Development would install a stockade privacy fence on the northern boundary of the property extending approximately 375 ft. Benderson Development agreed to erect the fence to address the concerns that had been previously voiced by the nearest residential neighbor.
Mr. Recoon distributed two elevation plans for the members to review. The Board approved the design of one of the presented elevations and Chairman Biryla signed the plan chosen.
Mr. Ostrander noted that engineering approval had previously been granted. However, the plan being presented has been updated and it must be resubmitted for Engineering review and approval.
Mr. Bernard discussed the revised drive-thru traffic pattern with Mr. Recoon and the lighting plan. He explained that he had conferred with Board member Michael McGuire and they found that there are a number of areas that will have light spilling over onto other properties. On the lighting plan it notes “light base no pole”. This area is already lit by rows of stream lighting and the proposed lighting will be approximately at an eight-foot candle level off of the Benderson property. The overall lighting average is slightly higher than what usually is accepted, which is 3-1/2. The general lighting level is a little bit high and there is a spill over issue. In addition, the drive-thru fixtures chosen are not acceptable. These fixtures will need to have full cut-offs with shield lights to spill the other way.
The members discussed the traffic issues further. Mr. Recoon told the Board that Star Bucks’ deliveries occur once a week, via a box type truck, not a tractor-trailer. This truck is approximately 26 feet long. Mr. Fabinsky asked Mr. Recoon if there is adequate room for tractor-trailer deliveries, as he had suggested that the future tenant for the spec building could be a restaurant. Mr. Recoon stated that there is adequate room, and he presented two plans showing how truck deliveries would occur at the site. Scenarios of what could occur with the drive-thru traffic and possible tractor–trailer deliveries were discussed at length by the members.
Mr. Recoon noted that at the first entrance there would be a sign “drive-thru ahead”; at the second entrance a similar sign would be posted, but this sign would have a left turn arrow. He explained how the drive-thru traffic would flow and noted that anyone parked in the plaza would have the ability to enter the drive-thru area. However, he told the Board that he could not say that there would never be an instance where a semi-tractor would come into the drive-thru area and that there would never be an eleven-car stack. He noted that the typical drive-thru purchase takes sixty-nine seconds. Mr. Recoon explained further how signage would help direct the traffic. He commented that not only could customers in the plaza enter the drive-thru lane, they could also “escape”; four parking spaces were eliminated to create room for vehicles that might need to exit out of the drive-thru lane.
In response to Mr. Murray’s previous comments made at the last meeting regarding the Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s dangerous traffic pattern, Mr. Recoon explained that the Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s has drive-thrus that surround the building on all sides and described it as an impossible task for a patron to get into the building without crossing a drive-thru lane. He then explained that the Starbucks drive-thru stacking pattern, which is designed for a minimum of nine vehicles, will in no way interfere with patrons entering the front of the building, the side of the building or the rear. When asked if he is certain that there will be no second drive-thru window, Mr. Recoon stated that he would commit to the fact that there will be no second drive-thru at this site.
Mr. Murray questioned if it is safe to have a longer queuing channel. He feels this may create a situation where customers will drive down the parking aisles “fighting their way in” before the curb starts with other customers already present in the drive-thru lane. Mr. Recoon noted that the queuing channel at this location was designed to allow for a longer stacking plan. The typical Starbucks drive-thru is designed for six vehicles; this location was designed for a stacking plan of nine.
Mr. Bernard pointed out that Benderson Development has submitted several plans with different dates and versions to Town Officials for review. This is causing great confusion. He noted that the handicapped spaces are located in different areas on these various plans. Mr. Recoon stated that the Board should rely on the plan presented.
Mr. Murray stated that if Mr. Recoon could not establish the location of door ways leading into the building for storage, delivery or service, then it would be impossible to create a parking plan. He feels that Benderson has to commit at a certain point to how people will gain access into the proposed building. Mr. Recoon stated that this is a spec building and it is not a unique issue to not know who the tenant will be. Based on what he knows, customer entrances would be limited to two sides of the building (which he pointed out on the plan). He told the Board that the handicapped parking has been supplied per the code requirements.
The
Chairman noted that spec buildings have been approved in Orchard Park before. However, she wants to have as much information supplied as possible to make sure
that the handicapped spaces are located properly. She requests that Mr. Recoon
provide the members with a revised plan showing the space that Starbucks will
be using, a floor plan, the number of doors and a delivery schedule. She
further requests that the revised plan define the remaining area that will
eventually be leased. Mr. Recoon stated that he could not give a tenant layout
until a tenant is available.
Mr. McNamara told Mr. Recoon that in regards to the delivery trucks it is not a length issue as much as it is a width issue. Is the area wide enough to accommodate truck deliveries? He further told Mr. Recoon that he will not support a plan that does not clearly define what Starbucks deliveries would occur.
Mr. Ostrander questioned if one set of doors is used at the front, then will the deliveries come through the front door? And, is it code compliant to have one set of doors? Mr. Recoon stated that he did not know if it was a code violation, but that other Starbucks exist with no rear door.
Mr. Murray stated that the logic for the location of deliveries is understandable, up to the point that the handicapped access may become blocked. He further stated that it is difficult to review this plan without knowing where the Starbucks is located.
Mr. Recoon stated that he typically does not reference a tenant until they have specific building approvals or a signed leased. In this instance, there is a commitment from Starbucks to locate here. However, he told the Board that he would re-design the site plan to give a better understanding of what is being proposed. He reconfirmed the fact that in the event Starbucks were to leave, there would never be more than one drive-thru located at the site. He told the Board that he does not want the situation that exists at the Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s to occur here.
Mr. Bernard noted that his concerns are with the traffic flow pattern, the signage directing traffic and the handicapped parking being located correctly. Presently, the handicapped parking spaces appear to be quite a distance from the entrance. He feels that the Board needs an idea of what the concept plan is, or at least what is perceived to be a high probability of how the project will be laid out. In addition, he would like different options of where the doors would be most likely located.
Mr. Fabinsky noted that the Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s project was originally presented as a location for a family restaurant during the initial site plan review. Instead it became “Tim Horton’s/Wendy’s”. He told Mr. Recoon that the revisions and information that the Board is asking for may not necessarily limit the developer’s site options, but rather, end his grief.
The members asked that Mr. Recoon submit a revised plan that would address the following:
1. Define the location of Starbucks.
2. Delineate the handicapped parking spaces.
3. Show the possible location of the entrances.
4. Show where the delivery trucks would enter and exit the site.
5. Show the traffic flow of the drive-thru – provide overlays and signage that will be used.
6. Clarify the number of screened dumpsters, whether it will be one for the entire building or several, with locations. Will parking spaces be lost due to the dumpsters?
7. Provide a projection of the impact Starbucks will have on Tim Horton’s business.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, second by Chairman Biryla to TABLE this case pending receipt of the revised proposal.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
BIRYLA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
MC NAMARA AYE
MURRAY AYE
THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P.M.
DATED: June 16, 2005 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: June 27, 2005 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
Lorraine Biryla,
Planning Board Chairman