Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON October 6, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph Koval Mr. Joseph Moloughney Mr. Mark DeFruscio Ms. Sharon Gariepy MEMBERS EXCUSED: Vice Chair Clarence Bagley ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Erin Thomas, City Planner Ms. Amy Ryan, Recording Secretary MINUTES Chairman Koval called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. He then asked the recording Secretary to call the order of attendance. There were no minutes to approve. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ENTITLED “SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR CAPTAIN’S LOOKOUT – REVISED 9/19/06” , LOCATED ON DELAWARE AVENUE AND SUBMITTED BY F.G.R. ASSOCIATES, LLC. Item on the agenda is a public hearing and consideration of a Major Subdivision Plat entitled, “Subdivision Plan for Captain’s Lookout – Revised 9/19/06”. Prior to the public hearing, Chairman Koval had a few questions regarding Resolution #09 for 2006 of Cohoes Planning Board. He stated that the resolution had two revision dates, December 23, 2005 and September 06, 2006 but the last date the Planning Commission approved the layout was February 6, 2006 Mr. Lynch stated that Feb 6th was the approval of the project and the most current plans at the time were the December 2005 plans. Chairman Koval stated that he was not present at the February 6, 2006 meeting. He stated that the February plans included a four lot subdivision, with a large parking lot to the extreme south and no buildings. The plans were then revised to retain the four lot subdivision, eliminate the big parking lot, add one building and a small parking lot. Mr. Lynch stated that when the plans were first approved, the southwestern corner of the site, now proposed as a parking lot, was where the Smith Seal Coating Business was located and at the time of initial approval there was not a contract for that parcel. The 12/23/05 revised plans were approve by the Commission on February 6, 2006. The resolution called for the approval of the project but the Chairman was to not sign the plat until such time had passed for any further technical review by the engineers. The initial 1 plans were not filed with the County Clerks office and the milars have never been signed on the plans that were from February 2006. Chairman Koval asked what was revised on February 13th that makes the plan different than the approved plan of February 6th. Mr. Lynch stated that the September 19, 2006 plan shows revisions to the plan on 01/12/06, 2/13/06 and 9/19/06. The 2/13/06 revision was for the addition of building and parking spaces. Mark Jacobson stated that he believed that the revision should read January 13, 2006 not February. Chairman Koval instructed Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jacobson that he wants verification on the revision dates. Mr. Lynch stated the revisions to the paperwork will be made. The project approved in February of 2006 consisted of 4 building lots with a total of 7 buildings. Of the seven buildings, 5 of the buildings will two story buildings with 10 units. Chairman Koval intervened and stated that as long as the corrected plans are submitted to Ms. Thomas he would be satisfied. He called the public hearing to order at 6:43 p.m. Mr. Lynch explained that he had been informed by Mr. Terry Fields that the revision on the 6th had to deal with the number of parking spaced available to the public. The plan before the Board dated September 19 is the same as the December 23rd plan in so far as the building layout and sizes and unit number is concerned. The difference is that each building and parking lot is on separate building lots solely for the purpose of financing. Mortgage will cover the entire lot and a release will not be given for part of a lot. Lot lines were used to divide the lots per building and per parking areas, solely to facilitate the ability to secure a construction loan against the lot that is being built and when property is sold the loan for the particular lot will be released. So there will not be partial releases. The project has not changed the only thing that has changed is the breaking up of the lots for financing and release purposes. He also stated that nothing has been signed by the Chairman since February 6th. There was a condition regarding parking space available to the public. Chairman Koval asked the Commission members if they had any questions regarding the subdivision of the parcel of 4 to 7. Member DeFruscio asked a question regarding the financing of the lots that were parking lots only. Mr. Lynch stated that mortgage to build the infrastructure will cover the entirety of the project. Lots 1 and 8 will be for excess parking. The building will have intended parking in the driveways. There is some question as to whether the parking lots will correspond 2 to any one particular building. When they do go to release they want to have the flexibility to release the parking areas independently of any particular building. The City Corporation Counsel did reach out to Mr. Lynch regarding a concern as to whether or not the access parking areas will be built. He suggested that cap be put on the project. They are also exploring the possibility to add addition land to the North end of the project. There are no contracts on the land at the time of the meeting. The property if acquired may be used for a parking lot and they may possibly shift the parking areas. Hence, why, they are looking for some flexibility by allowing each parking lot to be on separate lot. If, in the future, they do want to come forward with additional land and have some flexibility with moving parking areas away from the southern end of the site and putting at the northern end of the site. This might possibility coincide with some of the future plans the city has for a possible park along the waterfront. Member DeFruscio stated that he is more concerned with the flow and turn over of the property which essentially is the parking area to both the builder and the community as time progresses. Wondering if funding, financing and turn over of the lots designated as parking lots is different that the building lots. He interpreted Mr. Lynch’s explanation as that they will be dealt with identically as the building and will be turned over to the builder at some point. Mr. Lynch replied that it depends. Mr. DeFruscio stated that he was only concerned with just the parking lots. He asked Mr. Lynch about the mortgage for the infrastructure which the two lots are part of, in regards to could they guarantee that the parking lots would be built and at some point turned over to the building owner. Mr. Lynch stated that they may not necessarily be there. Member DeFruscio stated that without that guarantee he felt that they could not consider the project. Chairman Koval stated that if the builder builds the building at the extreme south, and the builder decides that they do not want to build the parking lot because he does not have to and it is the first building that goes up then there will be only 10 apartment with 10 parking spots and no other parking which he believes is the heart of the problem. No matter what phase you begin there will be no other place for people to park other then the residents for building 2, along Delaware Ave and building 7, on the other end. His concern is that if the builder is not made to build at least one of the lots while the other building is being built there is no place for people to go. Parking to the North is not the answer because the distance to building 7 is to long of a walk. Mr. Lynch stated that they are trying to be flexible but understands the concerns of the Board regarding the parking lots being built in a reasonable time or reasonably corresponding to construction of the buildings on the site. He stated he would go back to Mr. Gush and discuss the concerns of the Board and try to come up with a plan that gives 3 the Board a level of comfort regarding the lots having to be built with overflow parking right away. Chairman Koval asked about the buildings on Delaware Avenue to the north end at entrance right, “Where is there overflow parking?” Mr. Jacobson stated that each case is like a single family house with a garage and a driveway. Member Gariepy stated that there is a lot near building #4. Mr. Lynch stated that each condo unit has two actual spaces. There will be underground parking spaces for two of the building. Chairman Koval asked if the underground parking spaces would only be for the occupants of the two, 4 story buildings. Mr. Lunch stated that that was his understanding Chairman Koval stated there is only 1 ½ parking spots, almost everyone has two cars and there will not be parking on the street and he feels it is critical to have the overflow parking. Mr. Jacobson stated that there are approximately 36 parking spaces on the street in front of the two buildings. Chairman Koval asked if it would be dedicated as parking. Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jacobson felt it would not be dedicated along the street. Chairman Koval asked about an overflow lot on the north end. Mr. Jacobson said he would have to check but felt it might only be parking for building #4. Joe M. asked about the building with garages and driveway spaces and felt that the garages look relatively small. Mr. Fields stated some of garages are a bit smaller but they are standard size garages and standard parking. Member Moloughney asked about building #7 which has been shifted to accommodate the property line closer to the southern end. Chairman Koval reiterated his concern regarding the overflow parking. As part of the “THEREFORE” in the resolution and given the concern of parking in those southerly 4 buildings, he suggested that a Certificate of Occupancy (C O) for building # 1 shall not be issued until a proposed parking lot on Lot #8 has been complete and a Certificate of Occupancy on buildings #2 & #7 shall not be issued until the proposed parking lot on Lot #1 has been completed. Mr. Lynch stated that tying the parking into the Certificate of Occupancy is reasonable. Chairman Koval asked if any of the Board members or the public has anything to say. He proceeded with introducing Resolution #6 for 2006. Chairman Koval noted that this will be Resolution #6 because of the change from Planning Commission to Planning Board. Resolution # 6 for 2006 Cohoes Planning Board PLANNING BOARD Of the CITY OF COHOES RESOLUTION TO AMEND SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #09 for 2006 of the Cohoes Planning Commission Re: Application of F.G.R. Associates, LLC to Amend Resolution #09 for 2006 of Cohoes Planning Commission WHEREAS, by Resolution #09 for 2006, adopted on February 6, 2006, the City of Cohoes Planning Commission, as the SEQRA Lead Agency, issued a Negative Declaration of environmental significance and approved Applicant’s Four (4) Lot Subdivision Plan named “Captain’s Lookout”, as prepared by Chas H. Sells, Inc., dated July 11, 2005, last revised December 23, 2005, and which plan provided for the subsequent construction of 142 condominium dwelling units, in 7 separate buildings on four (4) Lots, consisting of five (5) ten (10) unit buildings, each two stories in height, and two (2) 46-unit buildings, each four- stories in height (above parking garage story), with ancillary off-street parking and green space, on a 6.012 acre parcel of Land along Delaware Avenue, City of Cohoes,; and WHEREAS, Applicant, F.G.R. Associates, LLC, seeks to amend the foregoing subdivision plan, by increasing the number of Lots from four (4) to nine (9), solely for the purpose of placing each of the seven (7) buildings on a separate Lot, and by placing two parking areas on Lot 1 and 8, all as set forth in the Subdivision Plan for “Captain’s Lookout”, prepared by Chas H. Sells, Inc., dated July 11, 2005 and last revised September 19, 2006, and WHEREAS, the application to so amend the subdivision Plan came on to be heard before the Planning Board at a public 5  meeting held on October 2, 2006, and Applicant demonstrated that the amended subdivision plat includes the same 6.012 acre parcel of land, and the same 7 condominium buildings, previously so approved on February 6, 2006 by Resolution # 09 for 2006, and requested the foregoing subdivision amendment for the sole purpose of securing construction financing to correspond to each building as each building and parking lot area are being constructed, evidencing that there has not been any substantive change in the previously approved project, WHEREAS, the action is subject to the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), as set forth in Environmental Conservation law Article 8, and the Regulations promulgated there under set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 617, and NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE AND HEREBY IS RESOLVED, 1. The City of Cohoes Planning Board, be and hereby determines that it has continuing jurisdiction to act as Lead Agency, to conduct a review of the proposed amendment to the Captain’s Walk subdivision, in accord with SEQRA, as well as the Cohoes City Charter and Code; 2. The proposed action to amend the subdivision plat from four (4) to nine (9) Lots will not have any significant adverse environmental impact, and there is no basis to modify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance issued on February 6, 2006, in accord with 6 NYCRR 617.7 (a) (2); 3. That the proposed amendment to the Captain’s Look subdivision, to change the number of Lots from four (4) to nine (9), be and hereby is granted in accord with §250-7 of the Cohoes Charter and Code, and the Planner is authorized to sign the final plan for “Captain’s Lookout”, prepared by Chas H. Sells, Inc., dated July 11, 2005 and last revised September 19, 2006, upon written determination made by the City Engineer that he has approved the engineering details of the plans submitted by the applicant. 4. That a certificate of occupancy for Building #1 shall not be issued until the proposed parking lot on Lot #8 has been completed, and certificates of occupancy for Buildings #2 & #7 shall not be issued until the proposed parking lot on Lot #1 has been completed. On a motion made by Board Member Mark DeFruscio, seconded by Board Member Joseph Moloughney, and a vote of 4 for, 0 against, and 1 absent, this Resolution was adopted on the 2nd day of October, 2006. Approved as to form this 2nd day of October, 2006 The vote was as follows: 6  AYE , Joseph Koval, Chairman ABSENT , Clarence Badgley, Vice Chairman AYE , Sharon Gariepy AYE , Mark DeFruscio AYE , Joseph Moloughney Non Voting Member , Erin Thomas Chairman Koval called the Public Hearing closed at 7:13 p.m. He asked Mr. Lynch, Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Fields to stay to discuss the future plans. The proposal looks like eliminating parking lot #8 and putting in a club house and to acquire property at the north end to build a parking lot that appears to take the parking lot at 1 & 8 and then use the lot 1 to build another 10 unit building to pay for the club house and the acquisition of the northerly property. Mr. Lynch stated that it sounds correct. It would only happen if they can acquire the north end property and if so then the project would have to be brought back to the Planning Board. Chairman Koval asked about the parking lot at the north end. He questioned whether or not it will be available for public parking. Mr. Lynch stated that right now 10 spaces on parking lot #1 will be available to the public. One issue that was raised was that people may want to use the trail. That is why they put aside 10 spaces for public parking. Member DeFrusio concurred and stated that the Commission at the time wanted to make sure there was public access. When the plan was approved the Commission asked that at least 10 parking spaces be set aside for the public to use for access to the riverfront. City Planner Thomas stated that the city suggested the a building not be placed on the Kilventon parcel, parcel in question which has not been acquired at this time, because it was thought that the parking being closer to the potential city park, to the north, would be helpful and were concerned with the view being obstructed from the Van Schaick Mansion, on the other side of Delaware Avenue. Chairman Koval said that if you add a club house and a 10 unit building (which eliminates a large parking lot) then it could create a bad situation of no parking especially at the south end. Would project have been designed the same way if you figured there would be a building and club house in that area. He felt that an old design has been reworked for something better or something at a higher density. Mr. Lynch stated that the Chairman’s concern is the parking impact at the southerly end of site not having adequate access to parking. If we acquire the piece at the north and put 7 another building the Chair is concerned with the parking impact at the southerly end of site not having adequate access to parking. Chairman Koval stated that if they were to come back with a plan to do the above he would not be in favor because of the parking. He feels there is too much at one end without the parking. Mr. Field stated that he would speak to Mr. Gush about the positioning of the clubhouse and the parking. Chairman called the meeting closed at 7:22 p.m. Member DeFruscio made a motion to close the meeting. Member Gariepy seconded the motion. 8