Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON July 14, 2008 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph Moloughney Vice-Chairman Clarence Badgley Mr. Edward Carboni Mr. Mark DeFruscio Ms. Sharon Gariepy Jake Dumesnil ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Melissa Ashline-Heil, Planner Ed Tremblay, Director of Community and Economic Development CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE June 2, 2008 MEETING Chairman Moloughney called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chairman asked the planner to take attendance call. Chairman Moloughney asked the Board to decide whether to approve the minutes from the July 14, 2008 meeting. The Chairman indicated that the date was misprinted as May 5, 2008 instead of July 14th. Member DeFruscio made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 14th, 2008 meeting with an amendment to the listed date. Member Carboni seconded the motion, roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 49 BROADWAY The homeowner presented her proposal for an above ground swimming pool in and empty lot at 49 Broadway that serves as a backyard for 61 Younglove. The pool would rest 53’ from the front property line; 45’ from the rear; and 45’ and 15’ from the side property lines. Vice Chairman Badgley moved to approve the special use permit. Member DeFruscio seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A SWIMMING POOL AT 7 ELAINE COURT Although the applicant failed to show, the Board reviewed the plans to install an above ground pool at 7 Elaine Court. The pool would lie 10’ from the rear; 100’ from the front; and more than 10’ from the side property lines. Member DeFruscio moved to approve the special use permit. Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 143 REMSEN STREET The applicant property owner proposed dividing his property located at 3 White Street in order to merge the portion divided – a parking lot – with 143 Remsen Street. The applicant owns both properties but would like to sell 143 Remsen Street. Member Carboni moved to approve the minor subdivision; Member DeFruscio seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 105 WASHINGTON AVENUE The applicant proposed a minor subdivision of property located at 105 Washington Avenue. The two new lots would meet code requirements on size and dimensions. The owner intends to construct a single family or duplex home on the new parcel that now lies vacant. Member Carboni asked if it was the property that contains a storage trailer. Member DeFruscio confirmed it was the 75’X100’ fenced in area that would be subdivided. Member DeFruscio moved to approve the minor subdivision; Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN FOR 17 WILLOW STREET The owner, Kyle Fillion, sought site plan approval for the renovation of the first floor as an apartment. Currently the first floor is a vacant business retail use – an old barber shop. The applicant proposed waiving the parking requirement because of the property’s proximity to two municipal parking lots. City Code gives the Planning Board discretion to waive parking requirements if the use is within 800 feet of a municipal lot. Chairman Moloughney indicated that it was also within the Board’s discretion to require a monetary contribution to improve the municipal parking lot the owners proposed using. He indicated that the DPW Commissioner provided an estimate of $10,000 to pave the lot, which included sub base, aggregate and paving materials and labor costs. The Planning Board was willing to request half that amount as the applicant’s contribution. The applicant wanted time to think about it, gather his own estimates and negotiate with the City. Vice Chairman Badgley moved to table the item; Member Carboni seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT AT 201 COLUMBIA STREET JC represented the owner/applicant. Member Carboni asked him what kind of lighting the applicant planned to install. JC answered that surface mount halogen lights would be installed. Member Carboni expressed a concern with glare into the neighbors’ yards and homes. He then suggested downcast, shoe box style lighting. Member Carboni then questioned whether the dumpster would be placed back in the corner where it appeared on the plans and screened by fencing. JC agreed that the dumpster would be pushed back into the corner and screened. Member Carboni then questioned how the applicant would protect the gas lines from the parked cars. JC replied that bollards or guard rail would be installed. Member Carboni asked about placement of snow storage, which is required by City Code. JC stated that snow would be piled and removed. Chairman Moloughney added that with the 8 space plan, plenty of spaces exist for snow storage. Member Carboni then asked whether the applicant would pave the lot. JC answered that it would be paved. Chairman Moloughney then requested creating two spaces on Masten Avenue by cutting into the sidewalk, as discussed at the previous meeting. In order to do so, the applicant would need to pay $3,000 to move two traffic signal boxes onto the sidewalk. The applicant preferred to hire his own contractor to perform the work, as he thought he could obtain the service for less. Therefore, the Board considered a conditioned final approval of the site plan. The approval of the project is contingent on eight onsite parking spaces. Two additional full-sized (9X20) spaces would be created on Masten Avenue with bump outs at the intersection and next to the driveway exit in order to guarantee proper site distance of turning vehicles. The applicant will provide downcast lighting to reduce glare for neighbors. The applicant has the option of entering negotiations with the City to hire an independent contractor to move the traffic signal boxes. However, that would require putting up a $3,000 performance bond. The City prefers that the applicant place $3,000 in escrow with the Comptroller for the expense of moving the traffic signal boxes. Member DeFruscio moved to approve the project plans contingent on these conditions. Member Carboni seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SARATOGA STREET Tabled until the August 11th meeting per applicant request. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 55 MOHAWK STREET Currently the parking lot outside of 55 Mohawk Street has 158 spaces; however five cannot be used due to truck deliveries to the loading dock on the east side of the building. As a result the developer proposes rebuilding the parking area. The developer also requests a demolition of the existing façade: approximately 30’X40’ in order to rebuild a smaller, two story entrance way and create more parking. Member DeFruscio asked about the parking on Canvass Street. Although the developer does not propose parking on Canvass Street, she does propose parking on her half of Canvass. Chairman Moloughney questioned the footprint of the demolition which the engineer did not have available. However, the developer plans to bury utility lines under the new façade; relocate the loading dock and transformer out of traffic; create better truck access; and widen the elevated walkway. Removing the existing loading dock will uncover a manhole the developer can use for stormwater as a catch basin. Member Carboni asked if the plan would increase green cover. Mike Schafer, the engineer, answered it would because the developer is adding flower beds, grassy areas, a fence and a trash compactor. In addition, the plan offers less impervious area with a parking lot retention system and more catch basins. At the meeting, Daniele Cherniak questioned the SEQR process for 55 Mohawk Street, and whether it would be incorporated into the SEQR for 77 Mohawk Street. She argued that the 77 Mohawk SEQR claimed a lack of parking for 55 Mohawk made the demolition of an historic building possible. However, the plans for 55 Mohawk include increased parking. Chairman Moloughney indicated that the two parcels are separate projects that would have separate SEQR reviews. The developer would have liked approval of the façade improvement – demolition and reconstruction – and a subsequent approval of the parking lot site plan. The Chairman indicated that the developer must undergo and complete the SEQR process prior to the Board taking any action. The engineer would need to submit plans for review to the Planning Board Engineer, Tom McGrath. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR BROOKFIELD POWER EXCAVATION AND FILL PROJECT TABLED until the August 11th meeting per applicant request. CONSIDERATION OF A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 100 COLUMBIA STREET Engineer Chris Boyea of Bohler Engineering described the project as an upscale retial development with two store fronts. It would feature a one lane drive through facility in the rear and parking in front of the building. The parking lot would enter and exit both on Monroe and Columbia Streets. The developer would plant trees along the property line in the rear to buffer residential neighbors from retail activity. In addition, the developer is seeking an area variance to install an 8’ fence to buffer the neighbors from the property. Member Carboni questioned whether the building would need the drive through facility if the developer does not rent to a bank. Any other use, he added, would back up traffic at a one lane drive through. Too many idling cars would create exhaust pollution for the residential neighbors. Chris Boyea indicated that the drive through could not be placed anywhere else, but that it can accommodate a 20 car stack. Member DeFruscio asked if the developer knew the hours of operation. Chris answered not at this time. Chairman Moloughney asked given the possibility a fast food restaurant might rent the space would the developer limit the hours of operation. Chris agreed that the developer planned to limit hours of operation so as not to offend the neighbors. Chairman Moloughney asked if the applicant would install a sidewalk. Chris answered yes.Vice Chairman Badgley asked how close the Columbia Street driveway entrance was to Stewart’s entrance. Chris quoted the City Code requirement that all driveway entrances must lie at least 20’ from the side property line. In this case, the driveway rests 30’ from the side property line. Chairman Moloughney then asked about the acreage and stormwater issues: Is the lot greater than 1 acre? If so, then the City needs the stormwater handled for SEQR purposes. In addition, doesn’t the land suffer from standing water and drainage issues stemming from Stewart’s? Chris indicated this was all true and would be handled SWPPP and addressed in the SEQR process. Member Gariepy moved to grant the Zoning Board of Appeals lead agency status. Member Carboni seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DRIVE THROUGH BANK ON NIVER STREET Sue Commanda represented Hudson River Credit Union in presenting a conceptual plan for a drive through facility on Niver Street. Currently, the Credit Union operates its Cohoes’ facility in a 1200 square foot space in the Zandry building on Niver Street. However, with 2600 members, HRCU needs a drive through facility. HRCU is interested in building a new facility on 2.2 acres of land owned by the Eros family. The property in question would allow HRCU to build a facility up to 3500 square feet. It would feature three drive-through lanes and one atm lane. A 27 space parking lot would surround the building. However, the plans do not adequately account for the 12 count stacking queue that studies at the Glens Falls main branch office indicate as the peak flow. Chairman Moloughney asked about the total area of disturbance. Ms. Commanda did not know the total area at this time. However, HRCU will provide a stormwater management plan as the engineering details become available. CONSIDERATION OF ALBANY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SARATOGA STREET The County required that the developer file a Notice of Intent with the NYSDEC. Member DeFruscio moved to approve the project plans contingent on these conditions. Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF ALBANY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JAMES STREET The County requested that the local approval include a review by the County Department of Health and submission of an NOI to NYSDEC. In addition to the usual requirements, the County requires the developer to submit plans to the County DPW for review because of the project’s proximity to the bike path. The City of Cohoes will send a copy of the plans to Albany County DPW. Member Gariepy moved to approve the project plans contingent on these conditions. Vice Chairman Badgley seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Edward Carboni X Joseph Moloughney X Clarence Badgley X Mark DeFruscio X Sharon Gariepy X Member Gariepy moved to adjourn at 8:45pm; Vice Chairman Badgley seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously.