Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 6, 2007 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph Koval Vice-Chairman Clarence Badgley Mr. Mark DeFruscio Ms. Sharon Gariepy Mr. Edward Carboni MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Joseph Moloughney ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Edward Tremblay, Community Development Officer Ms. Carol Shufelt, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 16, 2007 MEETING Chairman Koval called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chairman asked the recording secretary to take attendance call. Member Gariepy made a motion to approve the minutes of July 16, 2007. Member Badgley seconded the motion, roll of call was taken and motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Koval X Sharon Gariepy X Clarence Badgley X Edward Carboni X Mark DeFruscio X PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT AT 49 JOHNSTON AVENUE , SUBMITTED BY GOOD GROUND CHURCH. Chairman Koval stated that we have no resolution for this project because it is a preliminary review with no official act to be taken. Mr. Todd Eats, Deacon for Good Ground Church. We are looking to construct two (2) parking lots. Mr. Koval stated that the current parking situation is in a verbal agreement with a neighbor and you do not officially have your own parking lot. Chairman Koval stated that the proposal is for two (2) parking areas. The first to accommodate approximately 20 cars at the corner of Johnston Avenue and Garner and the second would be on Johnston Avenue towards the most easterly side of the building with perpendicular parking this will accommodate approximately six (6) compact cars and one (1) handicap parking spot. Member Gariepy asked that the area on Johnston Avenue where you would have to remove the curb and have pedestrian walkway combined with a series of parking spaces, what is the dimension of the standard spot. Mr. Eats stated that each parking spot is 16’ or 17’ wide and from the building to the beginning of the sidewalk is 19’ the sidewalk that is there now is a paved sidewalk not concrete with very little curbing. Mr. DeFruscio asked what they will be doing for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Eats stated that the parking area is for compact cars only. Member Gariepy asked if this will be posted for compact parking only. Chairman Koval stated that the handicap parking is not going to be any good. Mr. Eats stated that they will have to change it and that the larger parking lot will also have handicap parking. Member Gariepy stated that in the next set of drawings that it will show the handicap parking and the measurements for the official drawings. Member Badgley asked if there will be any handicap parking in the back area? Mr. Eats stated that yes there will be handicap parking in the back area for the larger parking lot. Member Carboni asked if they new what the distance from the intersection to the parking lot was? Mr. Eats stated that they were not sure they wanted to know what the city requirements were. Mr. Tremblay stated that the required is 50’ from the intersection of any two streets. Mr. Eats asked if the exit is the same way. Chairman Koval stated that unless they were sure that the City owns that alley it may not qualify as a street and be subject to the regulations we would have to check on, but it would apply if it is. Mr. Eats we could make the entrance and exit the same. Member Carboni stated that getting back to the smaller parking lot you have to have 20’ not to the curb but to the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Eats stated that they have 19’ to the edge of the inside sidewalk to the building. Mr. Tremblay stated on the drawings there are lines are extended part way that is the 20’ mark. Chairman Koval stated that our code is 9’ x 20’ unless you get a variance they do not recognize a compact car. I am not saying you could not get a variance by signing it there is nothing specific under that dimension. Chairman Koval had several comments that the church will probably need to address (please see attached). Chairman Koval suggests that you review the list of comments and design around them. Mr. Tremblay stated that when we get to the final plans that this has to go in front of the HPARB. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR LION HEART DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON WILLIAM STREET, SUBMITTED BY RALPH DRAKE. Chairman Koval stated that next item is preliminary site plan conference for Lion Heart Development located on William Street behind the public housing facility on Manor Avenue. Tom Andress with ABD engineers representing K & M Construction for Lion Heart. Mr. Andress stated that they have been working with the City of Cohoes on this project for the past 2 years one of the larger issues that had to be resolved was obtaining access it is about 26 acres just on the north side of the bike path. This parcel has no access to any roads at this time. The proposal is to improve Williams Street and extend Williams Street so that it comes into the property. For the last 2 years we have been working with the Mayors Office and Cohoes Housing Authority for the access and the planning department to come up with a way to get into the site that would work for everyone. We have now agreements in place to extend Williams Street. It will involve a number of items, purchasing of a home, which the applicant just purchased that is currently on the corner of Williams Street and Manor Avenue. This was purchased to create a better site distance and improve the entrance to Williams Street and Manor Avenue. It will involve some land acquisition. We are in the process of doing that on the north side of Williams Street to increase the right-of- way of Williams so we can make this a larger road we will have curbing and underground drainage. We will be improving the 4” water main we will be bring a brand new water main from Manor Avenue all the way through the site and obviously connecting into the sewer that will actually come across into the main interceptor that is located near the bike path. The major improvements to William Street to get about 1,300”-1,400’ back to the point where the development will begin. The development is concentrated in one area. We did come into the planning department initially with a development that will utilize all of the property we do have a single family design that will utilize all of the property. This is 93 units they are town houses they will have their own lot. The ROW network is city owned along with utilities each will have frontage on the city road. They will be controlled by the homeowners association. The association will have control of the exterior of the building maintenance of the grounds all of the items that will go along with a standard homeowners association except for a roadway, the roadway will still be maintained by the City of Cohoes. There is a large area about half the site that is remaining open that is something that as we progress forward will still be maintained by the homeowners association that is something that would be dedicated to the City the park land does have direct access to the bike path. We will be internally making an access from this development directly to the bike path but there is frontage on the bike path there is nice high dry land there as we progress forward we would see if the City is interested in taking that or leaving as part of the homeowners association. The basic idea of 93 units but because they are attached we would have to determine the procedure right now it is under A2 zoning which does have side yard setbacks these would be zero line setbacks. We feel it meets the cluster requirement that the City of Cohoes has we can develop these many houses on the overall property by clustering them into this area. We need to make the determination as to how we can do that. This is a general overview as to what we are proposing at this point. Chairman Koval stated that the original conceptual plan of this project was done in December of 2005 with drawings dated in July of 2005 that particular conceptual plan received no official action from this board it was just a presentation similar to what the church just gave us tonight. At that time there were 38 single family homes stand alone 34 single unit town houses and 17 buildings that were developed based on A2 zoning which was in place in December of 2005. The City of Cohoes since then has adopted a new zoning code August 12, 2006 making this R1 and not A2 as you know the requirements for R1 are more stringent than the requirements for R2 what was formally A2 essentially since our zoning changed your organization revised these drawings three different times based on old criteria essentially you have a presentation on A2 that area is R1. Mr. Andress stated that we have been working with the planning department for the last two years with that zoning in place we would have to get a ruling on how that is going to be handled. Chairman Koval stated that this board was given the presentation in 2005. After looking at the drawings I couldn’t imagine how you were proceeding with all of these changes and apparently never looked from my limited knowledge of what was going on and didn’t know there was not a zoning change. Mr. Andress stated that we had a number of conferences with the planning department the most recent planner that is no longer hear. We were proceeding under the A2 recommendation so we would have to review that. Chairman Koval stated that I do not know what action you are going to take to justify that change I f you were grandfathered in so to speak if we had received several presentations we had gone through preliminary plan review I think we could say that yes this project started back then. This project did start back then but it was one drawing and it was strictly a conceptual thing. Mr. Andress stated that during the last two years we have been involved with the City Council who has worked closely with us for obtaining this access so we can discuss it with them. Member DeFruscio asked if the improvements on Williams Street are going to impact the parking for the Housing Authority. Is there parking that is consumed by that movement? Mr. Andress stated no actually the opposite we have been working with the Housing Authority for some time. Currently they have to back out on to the access road. As you drive around the Housing Authority property, the very first parking lot does back out to Williams Street that will still remain it does have a curb line so there is a small area that defines the back out point. That will remain it will become a little deeper because we will have a sidewalk through there right now it is a narrow strip it will make it a little easier for maneuvering. Pass that point all the other parking areas back directly onto the access road. We are reconfiguring the road so that it runs independent so that the city has defined right-of-way and there isn’t any back up into there. We are recreating parking lots so they will have single point access so they will maneuver within the parking lot. Some demand that they have in the lower area we will be building additional parking which will increase there overall parking. Member DeFruscio asked if there was going to be any traffic control signals at the intersections. Mr. Andress stated that there would be stop signs and at the Manor Avenue intersection there would be stops signs it does not warrant a traffic signal we would be widening it the applicant has purchased the house on the corner that will be removed it would be two (2) lanes coming out one going left and the other going right, and a larger lane coming in. Member Badgley stated that the city will be taking care of snow removal in the whole area coming out to Manor Avenue. Mr. Andress stated that at this time the city only owns a portion of it doesn’t do the rest of it. Member Badgley stated that you are going to upgrade the sewer along Williams Avenue. Mr. Andress stated that they are going to upgrade the water main and the storm sewer the sanitary sewer for the housing authority is internally through the development so we will not be installing a sanitary sewer there we will be hooking into the main that is coming from the bike path. We be creating that sidewalk from Manor Avenue into the point where the housing authority breaks off to the south so everyone has a way to walk on the sidewalk to Manor Avenue and reprofiling the road as well as the new water line and storm sewer. Member Carboni stated that there are two spaces per town house is there any auxiliary parking for guests. Mr. Andress stated that at this time we do not currently have that some of the units do have two car garages we do have enough width on the street for temporary on street parking. Member Carboni asked what the width of the street? Mr. Andress stated that it is 28’ from asphalt edge to asphalt edge. Member Gariepy stated that on your SEQR application it was stated that this area is 100% poorly drained, what type of consideration are you taking to make sure that it would be remediate? Mr. Andress stated that the nice thing about this site is that it sits high and it will drain towards the creek it drains from the west towards the east, internally there will be a full drainage system inside and actually there will be walk out basements on the units that are in the center so there is plenty of area to drain foundations. Member Gariepy asked if they will all have sump pumps. Mr. Andress stated that hopefully they will not need sump pumps it should drain out all the units may not have basements units that are inside the circle have walk out basements. Member Gariepy stated that it drains from east to west. Mr. Andress stated that there two large drainage culverts just pass Williams Street from where it goes from City owned to Housing Authority. Member DeFruscio stated that currently there is nothing additional, special to protect the housing authority property from any drainage that is rerouted away from there property. Mr. Andress stated that they will be improving all the drainage including the drainage on William Street that has a bit of a problem now. The City has come in a done some work but there is still some issues there is a lot of drainage that comes off this property directly into the rear of the housing authority that will be picked up correctly in to the storm drainage system it will actually be improving that area and we will be improving the piping. Chairman Koval stated that we are requiring retention basins due to the fact that large areas are being paved over and that water without retention basins would be in the storm system creating havoc? Are the elevations here such that there is a way around that? Mr. Andress stated that there is a whole area left as a retention basin. Chairman Koval asked if this is a basin that would retains just the initial shock of flow or does it remain wet for an extended period of time. Mr. Andress stated that meets the new DEC Phase II standards, these standards require a one year, ten year, hundred year storm it will be designed as a wet basin it will have standing water. The DEC has a specific requirement that you have to design a basin so the water is cleaned as it sits in this basin it goes through a micro-pool. Chairman Koval stated that given the proximity of the Manor Sites the number of homes going in here if the retention basin is going to sustain any amount of water you need to give it serious consideration for safety fencing. Mr. Andress stated that all basins that have water in them have fencing. Chairman Koval stated we have twenty-one (21) buildings with four (4) units each and another three (3) buildings with three (3) units each for a total of ninety-three (93) individual townhouses. What baffles me is the fact that R1 calls for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot minimum it also gives the criteria for minimum length and minimum width. You have a substantial number of lots. That right or wrong the bulk use table and the City code the says the exact criteria applies to attached housing or row housing. I scaled off the drawing and the lots are 25’ w and 115’ long that is not 10,000 sq. ft. and it doesn’t even come close to meeting the criteria of the width requirements whether it is R1 or A2. Mr. Andress stated that there are number of ways to move forward one of the most simplistic ways is under a cluster zoning you can meet the design by putting a design on the whole property to show that number of units and show and you can reduce it down to the sizes you are reducing it and then would have to require variances. The second way would be to ask for variances for the reduction in the size of the width of the units if it is zero lot line there is no side yard setback and ask for reductions in the area. The third way would be going to the City council and rezoning this as a planned development district. Mr. Andress Stated that there has been a lot of change in the past two years in the economics the owner had to acquire the home on the corner to do the improvements to William Street that weren’t originally looked at to that level. We are going to rebuild all of Williams Street. There are a lot of other improvements the City would like us to bring all the water lines in. There were a number of factors that came together to make this project work and the one thing was the number of units. Chairman Koval and Member Gariepy asked if Mr. Andress will at some point give them a list of other developments like this in the capital district that they could take a look at. Chairman Koval asked if there were any opportunities for common areas, such as walking trail, park, and recreational area. Chairman Koval stated that you were going to bring the sidewalks partially in and then not continue through. I believe that side walks are required in certain areas; if sidewalks are not going to be placed I suggest that you look into it to make sure you don’t have to. Another is street lighting and roadway width we need to look in to our code says 24’ for a road of this nature given the density the amount of parking the 50’ row there may be something to squeak in there to improve the roadway situation. Chairman Koval requested to sit in on the next meeting they have to discuss the R2 –A1 question. George Hebert 40 Madison Avenue the water lines that were put in years ago were developed for a normal neighborhood two story homes in general. Will the pressure in the lines meet the fire fighting requirements besides the residential use? Chairman Koval stated that he will have the DPW Commissioner meet on this. Mr. Andress Stated that we have met with the residents on Williams Street and others this is one of the comments on this and we have met with DPW in two meetings since then. We have reviewed with them extensively changing the pressure regulator to increase the pressure it is being held back by a regulator. Mr. Edward Hainault 1 Williams Street asked if there would be any pressure lost or pressure fluctuation. Mr. Andress stated that his understanding with his discussion with DPW is that they would be increasing the pressure by adjusting the pressure regulator. Mr. Andress stated that it would not affect your pressure. Mr. Daigneault asked if the trees on the east side of Williams Street that will be removed are going to be replaced. Mr. Andress stated that they will be replacing them and they will have a landscape plan in place. Mr. Daigneault stated that drainage system is marginal now they had to put in an additional drain to keep the land from being flooded. Mr. Andress stated that we had a meeting with you and the Mayor and we discussed the drainage and improvements being made on Williams Street for drainage. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED ON 147 MOHAWK STREET, SUBMITTED BY KARL POGGE. Mr. Karl Pogge owner of 147 Mohawk Street I am planning on renovating it into a 14 unit market rate apartment building. The preliminary layout as to how I would approach this is. The ground floor which is the first floor will have four (4) one bedroom units, the second floor is the main floor there are 6 units they are a mix and the third floor the upper floor they will be two (2) bedroom units. Chairman Koval asked that the size of the rooms will be sized to the existing code? Mr. Pogge stated that yes they all are the size by code and the lower level are handicap accessible and we took into fact the lighting. Chairman Koval asked if a structural analysis was done on the building, and could it sustain the construction of the new floor on the whole entire building. Mr. Pogge stated that he has had an engineer look at the site. Our plan is to build the building within the building. The roof system will be left in place there will be no changes to that the actual shell will remain intact. The changes they will need is a good foundation and a good frame to support the flooring system and new walls. We will build ground level which will be 2x4 walls that will be around the perimeter of the building and inside that will be divided into individual units and then there will be a flooring system on top of that and then the 2nd floor flooring system on top of that. It will hold itself it will not rely on the existing structure to hold the interior portion of the building. This is just a floor plan. Chairman Koval asked if everything here has to do with the apartments themselves. It is my understanding that the Historical Preservation Architectural Review Board (HPARB) has already given a preliminary approval to the concept of the conversion of this building. Mr. Tremblay stated that he wouldn’t say approval they have met with Mr. Pogge and his architect. They felt the preliminary designs would fall into their review, they will have an opportunity when we get the detailed designs of that the major component of that is there will have to be additional windows put through the façade in order to meet the requirements for the bedrooms and such. Chairman Koval stated that this is in the historic district. Mr. Tremblay stated that HPARB on an informal basis did walk through the building with Mr. Pogge and his architect. They gave some of their concerns and based on their concerns is the design concepts that they need to bring back to the board, which will be reviewed by the board in the next couple of weeks. Chairman Koval asked what the size of the lot is. Mr. Tremblay stated that the floor plan is 5167’ the lot is a little bigger. Mr. Pogge stated that he has order a site plan from Hershberg & Hershberg and I have also purchased 143 Mohawk and take it down and use it for parking. As the property sits now there is no parking available. Chairman Koval stated that this going to be 14 units and given the zoning we are currently under you are looking at 28 parking spaces without a variance. Mr. Pogge stated that they are preparing a preliminary parking design which will be ready for the meeting on the 21. I am also under the understanding in Cohoes that you are allowed to use municipal parking as part of your calculations and the Cohoes Public Library is across the street and I can also talk to the owners of the OTB. If I am able to get a lease from the OTB for parking would that be allowed? Mr. Tremblay stated that as long as you could get a signed agreement and it is no further than 200’ from the building you do not need a variance. Chairman Koval stated that another area you should look into is relative to recreation areas, you have to provide a green space for your tenants. Mr. J. Richard Williams has an office and living quarters at 153 Mohawk Street and the other side of the building is known as 130 Canvass Street. The building is owned by Jean Mary Reinhart. The south wall of the church is encroached onto the property of Jean Mary Reinhart. CLOSE OUT SEQRA FOR FIRE HOUSE LOCATED AT 172 ONTARIO STREET Mr. Tremblay stated that as you remember when we opened the SEQRA the city hired CT Male to do two things one to complete a review of the SEQRA requirements on the location and they were also to work with a design firm on finals plans for both the fire house and the living quarters. They presented their findings to the city engineer and there were no significant negative impacts.. Member DeFruscio made a motion to close out SEQRA for the fire house located at 172 Ontario Street and seconded by Member Badgley. A roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Koval X Sharon Gariepy X Joseph Badgley X Edward Carboni X Mark DeFruscio X Chairman Koval called a motion to adjourn. Member Gariepy seconded. All in favor.