Minutes of the January 10 meeting of the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, S4295 South Buffalo Street, Erie County
MEMBERS PRESENT: William McNamara, Chairman
John Bernard
Harold Fabinsky
Michael McGuire
Philip Murray
Eugene Majchrzak, Alternate
EXCUSED: Paul Bodden
Lorraine Biryla
Remy C. Orffeo, Planning Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Geist, 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.
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the reading of the minutes of the December 13, 2006 Planning Board meeting was unanimously waived as each Board Member had previously received copies.
Mr. Fabinsky made a motion, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to accept the minutes of the December 13, 2006 meeting as presented.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing, P.B. File #31-06 Bennett, two-lot subdivision, 7.55 acres of vacant land, east of 5635 Armor Duells Road, Zoned R-2. Planning Board to conduct a public hearing for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Pre-application Findings were made on 11/13/96.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. The Affidavit of Publication and Posting, published December 23, 2006 was presented and filed with the Board by the Planning Board Secretary.
IN FAVOR:
Valerie Sarcione
Project Engineer – Nussbaumer & Clarke
3556 Lake Shore Road – Suite 500
Buffalo, NY 14219-1494
Ms. Sarcione stated that she is representing the petitioner, Mr. & Mrs. Bennett and she is in favor of the development.
Ms. Joan Hall
Armor Duells Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Ms. Hall told the Board that she and her brother originally owned this property and had sold it to Mr. & Mrs. Bennett. She expressed concerns for ingress/egress to the two lots, traffic safety in the area and a pipeline located on the property.
Mr. Murray made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to CLOSE the PUBLIC HEARING.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Chairman asked the Board to comment on the proposal.
Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander stated that Erie County Highway has reviewed and granted curb cuts and culvert sizing approvals for the proposed project. Mr. Bernard established that Erie County septic approval was granted and that the existing wetlands will be protected and maintained with proper drainage. In addition, the map cover will show the wetland areas.
The Board discussed the site and the planting of the street tree for each lot. Building Inspector Andrew Geist noted that when an applicant applies for a Building Permit they are placed on a tree planting list and the tree selection for the area is planted.
Mr. Fabinsky asked for clarification of the proposed wetland mitigation. Ms. Sarcione told the Board that the proposed driveways will cumulatively impact 0.09 acres of the 3.2 acre federally jurisdictional wetland area.
The Chairman asked Ms. Sarcione to discuss the traffic concerns voiced by Ms. Hall. Ms. Sarcione noted that each lot will have their own driveway that will come out 90 degrees to Armor Duells Road. She does not feel there will be an impact on the roadway from the two proposed homes and noted that she will submit a study regarding sight distance in relationship to speed that was performed to the Planning Office for the Board’s review.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to GRANT Conditional Preliminary Plat Plan Approval to this two-lot subdivision based on the submitted preliminary plat plan received 11/02/06 with the following conditions:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Short EAF, and a Negative declaration is made on 1/10/07.
2. Public Hearing and Subdivision Development fees have been paid.
3. Recreation fees in accordance with Section 144-70E of the Town Code will be provided prior to the Final Plat Plan Public Hearing.
4. One (1) Street Tree per the Conservation Board Street Tree Plan shall be provided on each lot, per Section 121-66 of the Town Code.
5. Town Engineering Preliminary Approval has been granted on 11/03/06.
6. The Board will authorize the Chairman to set a final public hearing when he deems appropriate.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY NAY
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) IN FAVOR AND ONE (1) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky to WAIVE the FINAL PUBLIC HEARING.
ON THE QUESTION:
Mr. Bernard noted that before he can make a motion to grant final plat plan approval he would like to review the traffic study that was performed so he may consider the concerns raised by Ms. Hall.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY NAY
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) IN FAVOR AND ONE (1) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky to TABLE final plat plan approval for the following reasons:
1. The Board requests that the traffic study be submitted for their review regarding sight distance and speed in the area.
2. The Board would like the Public Safety Committee’s input regarding traffic safety.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION TO TABLE WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing, P.B. File #14-04 Pleasant Acres II, four-lot subdivision at northwest corner of existing Pleasant Acres II subdivision (Burbank Drive) Zoned R-2. Planning Board to conduct a public hearing regarding change in map cover.
The Chairman called the Public Hearing to order. The Affidavit of Publication and Posting, published December 30, 2006 was presented and filed with the Board by the Planning Board Secretary.
IN FAVOR:
Mr. Rob Pidanick
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
4959 Genesee Street
Buffalo, NY 14225
Mr. Pidanick told the Board that he is in favor of the project.
Mr. Elliott Lasky, Developer
Forbes Homes
2635 Millersport Highway
Getzville, NY 14068
Mr. Lasky told the Board that he is in favor of the project.
Mr. Pidanick explained to the Board that the request is to amend the existing map cover. The amendment will provide access into the existing Pleasant Acres Subdivision, linking the neighborhoods together. He further told the Board that Erie County Health Department approval has not been granted for the extensions.
Mr. Bernard made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Fabinsky, to CLOSE the PUBLIC HEARING.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that he supports the changes in the map cover. He discussed the fact that another way will exist for individuals to access the future Town Park area and eliminate the use of Taylor Road.
Mr. Murray asked when the connection will be made to the existing subdivision. Mr. Lasky explained that it is his intention, if approved, to pave in mid May. He believes that the four homes will be constructed within the next 8 to 12 months. However, the first phase of the Pleasant Acres West subdivision will occur on the west side of the site. He discussed the build-out, noting that it will take a number of years before the connection is made. An easement for a turn-around will be provided.
Mr. McGuire made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to APPROVE the requested change in map cover for Pleasant Acres II, four-lot subdivision at northwest corner of existing Pleasant Acres II subdivision (Burbank Drive), Zoned R-2, based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an unlisted action and a negative declaration, based on the long EAF Parts 1, 2, & 3 was granted on August 12, 1987;
2. Applicant shall grant an easement for a temporary turn-around for this four-lot subdivision just within the limits of the proposed Pleasant Acres West Subdivision.
3. Contingent receiving Erie County Health Department approval for the sanitary sewer and water system extensions.
4. Contingent receiving Town of Orchard Park Engineering approval for this four-lot subdivision, and coordinate design with Pleasant Acres West Subdivision Plat Plan prior to issuing PIP for Pleasant Acres II. This portion of the road is called “Tranquility Lane” and its intent is to connect into Pleasant Acres West in the future build-out.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY NAY
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) IN FAVOR AND ONE (1) AGAINST, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
Mr. Pidanick noted that the map cover number on file with Erie County is 2518.
NEW BUSINESS
1. P.B. File #53-06 Polymer Conversions, Jack Bertsch of Polymer Conversions, 5758 Big Tree Road, located on the north side of Big Tree Road, Zoned I-1. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 3/1/06. Planning Board to review request for a Change in Use to convert existing residence to office space. Tabled, pending additional information requested by the Board.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Jack Bertsch, applicant
Mr. McGuire noted that he and Mr. Bernard reviewed the lighting plan for the site. The plan shows 400-watt fixtures will be used on three (3) 15-foot poles. They both feel this will create significant light spillage on to the adjacent property owner to the east. They suggest using a 250-watt, metal halide fixture on these poles. No re-submittal is needed of the photometrics.
Building Inspector Geist stated that he reviewed the square footage of the building and has determined that the parking space requirement has been met.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard to recommend that the Town board APPROVE the requested Change in Use at 5758 Big Tree Road from residential to office 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 fixtures on the site will be three, 250-watt shoe box style fixtures on a 15-foot pole.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. P.B. File #28-06, McDonald USA, LLC, 3232 Orchard Park Road, NYS Routes 240 & 277, Zoned B2. Planning Board to review a request for a Building Permit and Site Plan approval to develop the existing site with a new building, pavement, utilities, lighting and landscaping. Town Board referred to Planning Board on 4/19/06. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for Front Yard Parking on 6/20/06.
APPEARANCE: Randy Bebout, FRA Engineering
Scott Francis, McDonald’s USA, Pittsburgh, PA
The Chairman noted that the applicant appeared before the Board previously under “concept review” in November, 2006.
Mr. Bebout briefly explained that the proposal is to demolish the existing building and totally upgrade the site. All outside agency approvals have been obtained and Town Engineering approval was granted January 10, 2007. Conservation Board approval was granted on November 7, 2006. He told the Board that considerable upgrades were agreed upon to the building façade during a meeting that took place with Councilwoman Nan Ackerman. Mr. Bebout distributed copies of the proposed building for the members to review, noting that the building design is known as a standard “Arcade Building”. The upgrades agreed upon include top cornice moldings and the use of brick and field stone on all four-sides of the building. Mr. Francis noted that these are considerable upgrades, “we don’t normally do this”. It was further noted that the photos presented were of a newly constructed McDonald’s located in the Town of Amherst.
Mr. Fabinsky asked for clarification of the presented photos and how the building will be viewed from the roadway. Mr. Bebout explained to the members the placement of the building and how the building will be viewed; the front of the building will face Orchard Park Road. He indicated that the photo with canopies shown on the side of the building will be facing north. Also, the “railings” pictured in the photos are diversion rails to contain children from running out of the building and into the parking lot. These railings will not be located on the proposed building, as shown in this photo. Mr. Francis noted that because they are “children focused”, it is corporate policy to install the diversion railings in any place that a child could possibly get away from a parent when
coming out of the building into a traffic area. Mr. Bebout noted that on another photo in the package is of the drive-thru signage. The drive-thru is on the south side of the building. An aluminum trellis will hang over the cash window and the presenter’s window. Mr. Bebout, again, noted that the façade of the building was upgraded to brick and field stone, with the cornice molding (as shown in the presented photo). He further commented that this is the only McDonald’s that these modifications have been incorporated into with their “Arcade” Building.
Mr. Francis discussed the outdoor patio and noted that the diversion railings will be used in this area. The Board discussed the proposed outdoor seating and questioned if the parking space requirement complies with the total number of seats at the site. It was established that there will be a total of 90-seats compromised of 74-indoor seats and 16-outside seats. The total number of seats at the existing McDonald’s is not known. Mr. Francis stated, “Nan had requested that the outside seating be put out there”. “Honestly, we prefer to not have it, with outside seating, we would just assume to get rid of it, but it was requested by Nan to have it there”. Mr. Fabinsky stated that he did not feel that Mrs. Ackerman would support the outside seating. Mr. Bernard stated that he feels that Mrs. Ackerman would not have requested to have outdoor seating. Mr. Bernard further stated that if there is no outside seating, no one on this Board or the Town Board would have an issue with it. Mr. Francis stated, “Her comments were that it would look really nice”.
Mr. Murray asked if the parking spaces will support the number of seats. Building Inspector Andrew Geist established that it is supported by the code in the fact that employee parking is not mentioned as a factor. The applicants have proposed 45-parking spaces and the code states that seating for 90 must have 1-space for every two seats. Mr. Bebout stated that they meet the code and Mr. Bebout noted that “they were just going by the code”.
Mr. Bernard stated that he needed clarification on the submitted drawing involving the retaining wall with plantings. Mr. Bebout explained to the Board that the wall with plantings was proposed in order to meet the 10% interior green space requirement. It was further noted that the interior green space requirement at the site will be 10.1%. An approximately 1-foot high retaining wall is located on the north side, with a 6-foot interior area to be used as a planting bed. Mr. Bernard inquired where they would plow on this side. Mr. Bebout noted that originally they indicated this as a snow storage area; now they will be forced to store more snow at the rear. Junior Engineer Thomas Ostrander verified that the Engineering Department and the D.E.C. have reviewed this and have no problem with the snow removal plan. Mr. Ostrander noted that the Conservation Board directed the applicant to limit the number of parking spaces to maximize interior and site green space. He asked the Board to refer to the Conservation Board minutes.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that when the Board reviewed the concept plans, they indicated a “play land” located at the front of the restaurant. Mr. Francis interjected that this McDonald’s is not going to have a “play land”. Mr. Fabinsky stated that his feeling is that, he hopes they will not have it. He noted that during the concept review, there was no firm commitment for the dumpster and
outside storage. Mr. Bebout indicated that the dumpster will be on the south side and that the same brick used on the building will be used on the enclosure.
Mr. Bernard discussed the number of employees that will be using the parking spaces and Mr. Francis told the members that there will be approximately 12- employees with at least six who will drive and park; the remaining employees are dropped-off and picked-up. Approximately 65% of their business is drive-thru. He also described the various themes created in the restaurant to attract business. It was determined that there will only be 11-employee parking spaces.
Building Inspector Geist stated that although the parking code is met, he finds the number of parking spaces, to be in his opinion, “too close”.
Mr. Francis noted again that the Conservation Board had requested they reduce the number of parking spaces in order to meet the interior green space requirement. He offered to eliminate the outdoor seating and questions if deleting this will cause a problem with Mrs. Ackerman. Mr. Francis commented that this is Buffalo; that it snows here and he is not making money “off those chairs”. He noted that he would prefer to eliminate the outdoor seating. Mr. Bernard suggests that the applicant return to the Board if he desires outdoor seating in the future.
Mr. Murray established with the applicants that the plan before the Board is based on numerous meetings and that it should be considered the final plan. He asked the applicant to discuss the queuing plan. Mr. Bebout described the vehicle flow and stacking plan that will utilize a double order lane that progresses to a single pick up window with vehicles alternating as orders are given at the two call windows; approximately 11-cars can be present in the queuing plan.
Mr. Bernard noted that if you do not include cars stacked in the parking lot how many cars can be stacked in the drive-thru queuing? Mr. Bebout calculated 13 to 14 from the order board area and not including the parking lot area.
Mr. Fabinsky established that there is no traffic control in the lanes. Mr. Bebout noted that there is no record of accidents with other similar sites in existence and that by the manner in which the orders are taken (alternating), this continues the flow.
Building Inspector Geist discussed his Memo to the Planning Board dated January 8, 2007 as follows; with regards to Item #1, “outdoor seating” this is no longer an issue as it is eliminated; Item #2, reference to a “road sign planter box”, there is no information on this and it will require a variance. Mr. Francis noted that currently there are two signs and that they are eliminating the sign on Lake Avenue. Item #3, trash enclosure with a 218-sq. ft. shed, Town Code allows 120-sq. ft. in a commercial zone; the Board discussed the enclosure/shed and determined that entrance into the shed is in the enclosure facing the restaurant building. It was established that the shed will match the main building and that the Zoning Board of Appeals will be reviewing this request for additional square footage.
The Building Inspector asked the applicants if there were menu Boards or other signage that will be used at the site that the Planning Board must consider. Mr. Bebout stated that they are proposing directional signage for ingress/egress; the two order points must have two menu boards and a “welcome point” gateway sign with a bang bar noting a height caution.
Mr. Bernard and Mr. Fabinsky agree that the Board should review the signage requests as a separate item. He would like the Building Inspector to look at it and the Board to be able to review it prior to the next meeting.
Mr. McGuire, a past member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, noted that approximately 15-years ago a variance was granted for the second pedestal sign that exists on the site. He suggests that this be looked into as far as other signage approved for the site and this sign being “grandfathered-in”.
Mr. Francis told the Board members that he cannot move forward with this project until he has all his approvals. Mr. Bebout noted that if the Board would like to glance at it, he has the information with him tonight regarding the signage. He further noted that he has been working with Building Inspector Dave Holland regarding the signage that will require variances. Building Inspector Geist noted that items such as directional signage and signs such as a menu board are reviewed and approved by the Planning Board; other signage requests (out near the road) are a separate item reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bebout stated that Mr. Holland had made that clear to him. Mr. Francis, again, expressed and explained his concerns regarding his construction time frame to the Board.
The Chairman asked for clarification of the signage being requested and Mr. Francis noted that there are no other additional signs on the plan, other than building signage. Mr. Fabinsky asked why McDonald’s cannot proceed with the signage as a separate review. Mr. Francis restated that it is corporate policy and that he cannot proceed without all approvals in place.
Mr. Bebout noted that what he (Mr. Francis) is saying is that we can move it separate but, that; it further delays him with his building plans. Several Board members noted that there is no delay when you consider the fact that the applicant must go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for variance requests. Mr. Francis discussed leaving the second existing sign erect as it may be grandfathered-in. Mr. Ostrander noted that the existing sign is within the foot print of the site’s proposed detention pond. Mr. McGuire stated that he just wanted the applicant to be aware that there is a variance on the property for the second pedestal sign and that it may be grandfathered-in with other signage. Mr. Francis noted that he would be more than happy to conform to the grandfathered-in signage sizes and have the second sign on Lake Avenue. He stated, “I would love to have the sign back on Lake Avenue”. Mr. Bebout again noted the fact that the storm water basin will be located where the sign presently exists and that once the sign is removed relocating it will void the variance. However, Mr. Francis expressed keeping the pedestal sign in the same location in order to avoid applying for a variance. The Board pointed out that McDonald’s will still need to apply for a variance for the storage unit. However,
Mr. Francis stated that perhaps he would construct the building to conform to the code to eliminate the need for a variance.
The Chairman asked the applicants if there was ever a discussion with anyone on the Town staff to not erect the sign on Lake Avenue. He questioned if there had been an agreement with a hand shake not to have the sign on Lake Avenue. Mr. Bebout noted that when they met with Town staff they stated that the plan is to eliminate the sign at that location. In the same token, they spoke about having directional signage on Lake Avenue with the McDonald’s logo appearing on it. The Chairman stated that apparently there was earlier discussion and an agreement to not to erect the second sign; now the applicant finds that they may be grandfathered-in granting the second sign and they just feel that they can go ahead and “do it” without input from this Board or demonstrating the need for the sign. The Chairman noted that he is not happy about this. Mr. Francis stated that he is sorry that the Chairman feels this way. He further stated, “Throughout out discussions, it was crystal clear, between Mrs. Ackerman and us that she agreed that it is very important that our brand appear on Lake Avenue”. The Chairman noted, “That fifteen-minutes ago you were not asking for the second sign, until you heard that you may have been grandfathered-in”. Mr. Francis noted that he would keep the sign and not have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. The Chairman noted that the discussion has become unclear. Mr. Bebout noted that the intention is to have one sign on Orchard Park Road with the directional signage that you are seeing.
Mr. Fabinsky stated that it is a common practice for signage and parking to be reviewed separately by the Planning Board. He suggests that the applicants re-consider and have the Board vote regarding the request for the Building Permit and Site Plan and return for the outstanding issue of signage. Mr. Francis stated, “If I can get approval for everything but the signage, then I can move forward”.
The Chairman noted that this contradicts what Mr. Francis stated fifteen- minutes ago and he noted that the Board is getting different stories from Mr. Francis. Mr. Francis noted that fifteen minutes ago he was under the assumption that the Board was including the building signage in the package. The Chairman stated, “No, you stated that it was corporate policy that you must obtain all approvals before I can order materials, building plans; now we are getting a second story”. Mr. Francis stated, “No, but what I am saying is how I understood it; you cannot speak on how I understood it”. I am correcting myself as to how I understood it, okay?” “How I understood it is that my building signage package was part of it”. “I cannot move forward; if you are going to violate my building look in your approval process, I can not move forward and I will terminate the project right then and there”. “If you are going to change our brand look, and I can not look forward knowing that, or not knowing that, that was what I was speaking on”. “Not my road signage or the other signage”.
Mr. Bernard stated that the applicant should research the signage request and present a plan for the Board to review at the February meeting.
Mr. McGuire stated that he would like a listing of the actual number of signs and their locations. Mr. Bebout noted that they have prepared this information,
but that it is not in the package. Mr. McGuire noted that in the last 15-minutes he has seen a 180-degree change occur, relatively, to this topic.
Mr. Murray would like information supplied regarding the landscaping that will be used in the former outdoor/dining patio area. Mr. Bebout noted that the green space area will be extended and fewer pavement area will exist.
Mr. Majchrzak questioned the reduction of the outdoor storage shed to 120 sq. ft. and voiced his concerns regarding the storage of flammable liquids. He discussed having an area set aside for the “dumpster area” during construction so that the building process will not be delayed if the applicant decides to seek a variance for a larger storage building, calling it “an in process variance”.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. McGuire to RECOMMEND that the Town Board AUTHORIZE a Building Permit for a 3,897 sq. ft. Building and APPROVE the site plan received 1/3/07 based on the following conditions and stipulations:
1. This is an Unlisted SEQR action based on the submitted Short EAF, Parts One and Two and a Negative Declaration is recommended.
2. The site lighting is limited to those fixtures and poles indicated on the approved site plan. Light fixtures shall have flat lens.
3. No outside storage or display is permitted.
4. Dumpsters as shown shall be screened, along with any additional dumpsters, in accordance with Section 144-25 of the Town Code.
5. Approval is contingent receiving a copy of the filed permanent water easement between the Town of Orchard Park and W. Jay Milligan, Jr.
6. Town Engineering Approval was granted on 1/10/07.
7. A landscape completion bond in accordance with the Conservation Board minutes shall be provided for the approved landscape plan, which includes 10.1% interior green space and 44% site green space prior to the receipt of a Building Permit.
8. If the storage area is to exceed 120-sq. ft., a variance must be sought.
9. A plan for signage will be separately submitted for Board approval.
10. The paved area initially designated for outdoor seating will be deleted and a green space area with landscaping will be provided for all the area except the access walkway as the outside seating has been eliminated.
11. There is to be no playground equipment at the site.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA NAY
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION BEING FIVE (5) IN FAVOR AND ONE (1) AGAINST, AND THE MOTION IS PASSED.
CONCEPT REVIEW:
1. P.B. File #13-06, Target, 5622 Amanda Lane, Zoned B-1 – proposed expansion.
APPEARANCE: Mr. David Lombardi, John Meyer Consulting
Perri Hite, Target Corporation
Mr. Lombardi presented a color elevation and explained a revised plan for the proposed expansion and renovation of the existing Target store. He noted that the revisions were based on the comments of the Board and meetings that had taken place with Councilwoman Ackerman. The Board members expressed positive comments regarding the building façade. Ms. Hite told the members that a “grande screening wall” will be used to diminish the view of shopping carts stored outside.
Mr. Murray asked Mr. Lombardi to clarify for the Board the number of parking spaces planned for the site. Mr. Lombardi noted that 745 parking spaces are required by the ordinance; however, 593 parking spaces are shown on the site plan. There are thirty-five (35) employees present during the weekend. Mr. Murray established that Target is requesting a waiver to eliminate 150 parking spaces and that the Target site is a separate parcel from the Quaker Crossing site.
Mr. Fabinsky discussed litter control at the site and the landscaping plan for the site. Mr. Lombardi explained that the Conservation Board had requested plantings to mimic the plantings approved at the Ashley Furniture site located on the east.
2. P.B. File #67-06, Eckerd Pharmacy/Latina’s Plaza, North Buffalo Road, Zoned B-1, proposed - drive-thru.
APPEARANCE: James Rumsey, Benderson Development
Mr. Rumsey distributed plans and a rendering of the building façade for the site. He explained that the goal is to establish a drive-thru and maintain the existing Eckert Pharmacy. He discussed traffic flow at the site and additional green space area that will be developed noting that the entire site’s facade will be renovated.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Board Member Michael McGuire noted that the lighting fixtures installed at 220 and 240 Redtail Drive, North Forest Development (P.B. File #8-05) are not what were agreed upon. He further noted that during the Planning Board review process, the applicant, represented by Mr. Jordon, was told that the proposed lighting was not acceptable. Mr. Jordon agreed to submit a revised lighting plan with acceptable lighting, as directed by the Board.
Mr. Fabinsky made a MOTION, seconded by Mr. Bernard that the Building Inspector insures that the lighting at 220/240 Redtail conforms to that which was approved by the Planning Board.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
MC NAMARA AYE
BERNARD AYE
FABINSKY AYE
MCGUIRE AYE
MURRAY AYE
MAJCHRZAK AYE
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:20 P.M.
DATED: January 19, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,
REVIEWED: January 22, 2007 Rosemary M. Seivert
Planning Board Secretary
William McNamara,
Planning Board Chairman