Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON APRIL 13, 2009 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph Moloughney Mr. Edward Carboni Vice-Chairman Clarence Badgley Ms. Sharon Gariepy MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Mark DeFruscio Mr. Jake Dumesnil ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Melissa Ashline-Heil, Planner CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 9, 2009 MEETING Chairman Moloughney called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chairman asked the planner to take attendance call. Chairman asked the Board to decide whether to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2009 meeting. Member Gariepy made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 9th, 2009 meeting. Member Carboni seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Edward Carboni X Leo Badgley X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT for a POOL AT 43 DAVID DRIVE The property owner, Steve Elinski, requested a Special Use Permit to install an above ground pool in the backyard of 43 David Drive. The applicant submitted a site plan showing the pool 24’ from the rear property line and 23’ from the side property line to the east. Since the proposal meets all setback requirements and the property abuts farmland in the rear, the Board did not pose any additional questions. Member Carboni made a motion to approve the special use permit. Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Edward Carboni X Leo Badgley X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT AND BANK AT 35 NIVER STREET Engineer, John Latsko, presented updated plans for HRCU bank proposed for 35 Niver Street. He provided elevations of the building and discussed the review comments from Tom McGrath. Member Gariepy asked about parking. Mr. Latsko handed out a series of site plans for similarly sized banks with equivalent amounts of parking. A 2800 square foot bank in Virginia with 24 parking spaces; a 3,000 square foot bank in Pennsylvania with 15 spaces; a 4500 square foot bank in Glens Falls with 23 spaces; and a 3600 bank in Rhinebeck with 18 parking spaces. Member Carboni commented that the parking spaces are shown as 18’ deep on the examples. Mr. Latsko replied that the firm follows the local ordinances. Cohoes requires 20’ deep spaces and that is what the Credit Union lot will use. Member Gariepy asked about landscaping. Chairman Moloughney added that the revised plans show some landscaping in the front of the property, but none in the rear. Mr. Latsko explained that the bank would raze the shed in the rear. Chairman Moloughney asked if the bank would grade the land. Mr. Latsko referred to sheet SP5, the revised grading plan which shows the two retention ponds. Chairman Moloughney asked if the land would be fertilized. Mr. Latsko replied that the DEC does not permit disturbances that close to the wetlands. Chairman Moloughney clarified the dotted line shows the wetlands and that only organic fertilizer can be used in those areas. Chairman Moloughney also asked whether the stormwater would not be captured and treated. Mr. Latsko described that the amount of increased stormwater runoff – created by the parking lot and building – would be captured and treated. Member Carboni asked if the developer would raise the land in the floodplain. Mr. Latsko confirmed that the whole site would be raised 2’ and sloped to bring it up out of the floodplain. The parking lot would be brought up 12-16” of fill prior to placing aggregate subbase and paving. Altogether the parking lot would also be raised 2’. Member Carboni then inquired about signage. Mr. Latsko reiterated from last meeting that the plans do not reflect signage, but that a sign site plan would be submitted later and would meet City Code and guidelines. He anticipates that the bank would want a monument sign in front of the property that would be visible from 787. Member Carboni added that the bank would not request an electronic sign that flashes the time and temperature. Mr. Latsko assured the Board that the bank would not want to install such a sign. Chairman Moloughney asked the engineer if the developer planned to surround the parking lot with a swale. He also asked if the runoff would sheet drain to the swale and discharge to the river. Mr. Latsko confirmed that was the case. In addition, the roof drains would discharge in that manner too. Chairman Moloughney indicated that those plans need to be shown on the drawings. Mr. Latsko asserted that sheets SP3 and SP7 reflect those items. Chairman Moloughney replied that the swales should also be shown. Mr. Latsko pointed out that sheet SP5 shows the grading plan and contours. Chairman Moloughney replied that it was not clear on the plans and that the plans should also show the outfalls. Chairman Moloughney explained that the Board procedurally needs to conduct a SEQR review. Prior to completion of that review the Board needs answers to the aforementioned issues as well as the following: 1) the SWPPP still lists the Town of Amherst where it should refer to the City of Cohoes; 2) the plans need to show that the roof drains will sheet drain into the swales and flow into the basins, parking lots will also sheet drain to swales, swales will carry flow to basins; 3) SWPPP addresses undisturbed wetland area but none of this water is captured or treated, so how will fertilizer pollution of the pond be avoided without capturing or treating this water and 4) either justify or abandon the use of Chapter 9 for the stormwater handling. Chairman Moloughney explained that the Chapter 9 provision applies to redevelopment and only exempts the new development from treating the existing impervious area. Instead, the developer is required to treat only what additional lands are made impervious. In addition, the developer must make every effort to treat stormwater normally first, as Chapter 9 is a method of last resort. In this case, the developer appears to be turning to Chapter 9 first without considering other possible methods. Therefore, the Board needs to see how the developer and design engineer reached this plan. Member Gariepy moved to declare lead agency status for SEQR purposes. Vice Chairman Badgley seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Edward Carboni X Leo Badgley X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PARKING LOT AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENTAT 100 COLUMBIA STREET The developer chose to table the issue until next month in order to provide more comprehensive plans to the Board and to determine the cost-benefit ratio for the project. However, two neighbors and the Ward Representative did attend the meeting to express their concerns. The developer had also submitted some information including an elevation of the building rendering. Neighbor Ross Goodman of 4 Wilson Lane still has issues about a drive thru located 10’ from his property. He explained that he purchased the property with the idea he would live in a quiet residential neighborhood. However, the drive thru would create busy traffic and the associated nuisances in his backyard. He also emphasized that the hours of operation should be more restrictive than the surrounding businesses. The Stewarts is open 6am to 11pm and the CVS is open 8am to 10pm. Chairman Moloughney asked if restricted drive thru hours would alleviate any of the concern. Mr. Goodman would like to see more restrictive hours on the drive thru. Chairman Moloughney explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the drive thru facility. At this point in the planning process the Planning Board can only manage the impact of the proposal and mitigate potential nuisances. He also commented that the quality of the building is more important to the Board than the specifics on the tenants. Alan Timberland of 6 Wilson Lane expressed the same concerns as Rodd Goodman. He would like to continue to enjoy the use of his backyard without noise or other nuisances. Dianne Nolin, Ward Representative, added odors, delivery hours, dumpster smells and hours of pick-up, and landscaping to the list of concerns from the neighbors. Member Gariepy asked how the Board can mitigate the concerns. Ms. Ashline-Heil replied that the Board could require emptying the dumpster more frequently. The Board could also limit the types of restaurants, the odors or require a special venting system for any restaurant that occupies the space. Chairman Moloughney asked about the lighting. Mr. Goodman answered that the proposed lighting would be downcast. Mr. Timberland asked about the increase in traffic. Chairman Moloughney indicated that the traffic study did not show a significant increase in traffic. However, the developer will need to provide a curved outlet onto Monroe Street deterring cars from turning right into the development. Chairman Moloughney announced that the Board received architectural drawings for those interested in seeing the proposed renderings of the building. Member Gariepy asked what rain gardens look like. Chairman Molougney answered that in this case the proposed rain garden would be a swale with landscaping. Ms. Ashline-Heil explained that the City would benefit from a rain garden buffer between the sidewalk and street because it would gain the City MS4 credits. Member Carboni added that the April 2nd meeting determined that the City would not want or benefit from sidewalks on Monroe Street. Ms. Ashline-Heil confirmed that was the case. Rep. Nolin commented that she and the neighbors anticipated work like Bonacquisti has done in Clifton Park and Wolf Road in Colonie. The proposed building looks like a garage. Mr. Goodman concurred that the rendering is not what the neighbors expected. He asked if the Board can affect the appearance after completing the planning process. Chairman Moloughney answered that the Board would need to condition the approval. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TOWNHOUSES AT JAMES STREET Joe Bianchini, engineer for the developer, described the amended site plan for Eagle’s nest development. The project would decrease in the number of units from 28 to 22. At the same time the project would increase in the number of buildings from 7 to 10. The City would own and maintain the street. The developer would also dedicate 1.7 acres of land, including the ravine, to the City. The Homeowners Association would handle landscaping, the stormwater basin and maintenance of the parking spaces. The engineer received Tom McGrath’s review comments on Friday. The developer agrees to incorporate all of his comments, clean up the plans and resubmit. Chairman Moloughney added that since the new proposal shifts from condominiums with no land ownership to townhouses with lot lines, the Board needs a subdivision plat. Mr. Bianchini agreed that the plan should show lot bearings, distances and calculations. Chairman Moloughney also commented that the project needs an area variance for the length of the cul de sac. The project is on the agenda for the April 22nd Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Vice Chairman Badgely asked about lighting. Mr. Bianchini replied that the same carriage post lanterns would grace each front lawn as on the original plans. Member Gariepy asked about the surety on the stormwater basin installation and maintenance. Ms. Ashline-Heil replied that the PDD legislation included all of the Planning Board’s conditions, including the surety. Chairman Moloughney asked about the material specifications. Mr. Bianchini indicated that the plans list DOT specs, subbase and pipe per the City’s requirements. He added that someone from Tom McGrath’s office will inspect the construction. Chairman Moloughney also asked that the bike path be connected to the Lansing Pool as an amenity to the City. He also asked about landscaping and plantings on the land to be dedicated to the City. At this time the land is cleared and needs better soil and erosion control measures. The silt fence was torn down. Mr. Bianchini answered that the developer mostly planned to clean up the land. Chairman Moloughney requested that the land be properly graded. Mr. Bianchini replied that the ravine drops right off and that connecting the bike path may be difficult because of the contours. Chairman Moloughney asked that City Engineer, Garry Nathan, and Review Engineer, Tom McGrath, walk the slope with the design engineer in order to check its adequacy. Vice Chairman Badgely moved to grant preliminary approval contingent on the items previously discussed; Member Carboni seconded the motion. Roll of call taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Edward Carboni X Leo Badgley X Sharon Gariepy X CONSIDERATION OF APARTMENTS ON SARATOGA STREET Jason Bell of Lansing Engineering described the two buildings proposed with 42 apartment units in each. Two parking spaces would be available for each unit for a total of 164 spaces. The project would connect to public facilities. However, the developer will install a separate storm sewer line that discharges to the River. Lansing Engineering received comments from the Review Engineer, Tom McGrath. Mr. Bell indicated that the design crew agrees with Mr. McGrath. Most of the comments constituted technical comments (for example, trenching details) or clean up of typos. Vice Chairman Badgely asked about the trunk line size. Mr. Bell replied that it would be 40” to the river. Chairman Moloughney clarified that the 36” intake line is different. Mr. Bell added that the developer will reconstruct a concrete weir so that stormwater travels to the sewer during normal flow and jumps the weir to discharge to the river during high flow. Member Carboni asked if the stormwater system will use cartridges. Chairman Moloughney added that the cartridges are listed on the plans. He wondered what make and model of cartridge would be used and whether those were DEC approved. Mr. Bell replied that the CS units are DEC approved. However, the model numbers were updated recently. Lansing Engineering included that detail in the SWPPP. The SWPPP describes how the water will collect from the parking lot and flow through the filter medium. The SWPPP also describes the maintenance of the system. Member Carboni asked whether the developer would provide auxiliary parking. Jason replied no. Chairman Moloughney commented that the parking meets the code requirements. In addition, apartment dwellers usually do not host large parties. Ms. Ashline-Heil also added that the apartments may have only one occupant, meaning extra parking would be available at all times. Member Carboni asked about snow storage. Mr. Bell indicated that areas for snow storage are available on the property. Member Carboni asked whether the snow storage areas contain any manholes. Mr. Bell replied that no inlets were on the land where snow storage would be placed. Chairman Moloughney asked if the stormline proposed under the sidewalk at the retaining wall could be moved. Mr. Bell replied that it is water tight pipe. The only options were under the sidewalk or rip into the road. Chairman Moloughney questioned whether repairs would collapse the retaining wall. Chairman Moloughney asked about the driveway entrance at Pine Street. The plans show a disconnection of elevations. Mr. Bell replied that the developer hopes to make that section one entrance for both the Old Mill End and the Saratoga Street Apartments. That would require grading the land since it is the steepest portion. Chairman Moloughney asked how the developer would connect the new and old retaining walls. Mr. Bell replied that the final designs of building will determine which blocks the developer will use. Which blocks used will determine how the two would connect. Each block company has its own expert who will assist with designing the assembly. Chairman Moloughney asked about pedestrian access to Saratoga Street. He asked whether the elevations were the same from the street to the building. Mr. Bell confirmed both. Chairman Moloughney asked about the adequacy of hydrants. Mr. Bell answered that one is between the proposed buildings. Member Carboni asked if there would be sprinklers. Mr. Bell was not sure. Ms. Ashline-Heil added that warning signs were needed for Pine Street prior to the entrance and the plans should be submitted to the Traffic Commission. Chairman Moloughney added that the plans should show the MUTCD number. Member Carboni asked about lighting. Mr. Bell replied that showbox ornamental lighting along with the light levels were shown on the plans. Chairman Moloughney added that the rear parking area abuts the railroad tracks and library, so lighting would not be an issue. Member Gariepy moved to approve the plans; Vice Chairman Badgely seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Edward Carboni X Leo Badgley X Sharon Gariepy X Member Carboni moved to adjourn at 8:00pm; Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously.