Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 2009 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward Carboni Vice-Chairman Clarence Badgley Chairman Joseph Moloughney Ms. Sharon Gariepy Mr. Mark DeFruscio ABSENT: Mr. Jake Dumesnil ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Melissa Ashline-Heil, Planner CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 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 November 9th, 2009 meeting. Member Carboni made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 9th meeting. Member Dumesnil seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio X CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN SITE PLAN FOR HRCU AT 35 NIVER STREET John Latsko and Sue Commanda represented the interests of Hudson River Credit Union (HRCU). Member Gariepy asked how close the proposed stand alone sign would be to the existing DOT sign. Member Carboni questioned whether the sign would be on HRCU land. Mr. Latsko indicated that the sign would be 15’ in from the property line on HRCU land. Chairman Moloughney asked if the sign would be angled as shown in the rendition. Mr. Latsko explained that the rendition shows the sign angled to give members of the Board an idea of the look of the sign. However, the sign itself will be perpendicular to 787. Member DeFruscio asked about the size of the changing message board. Mr. Latsko replied that the static image would be 48” X 120” whereas the changing image would be 41” X 91”. Member Carboni asked what type of message would be on the board – would it change constantly? Mr. Latsko answered that the sign would transition at a slow rate. Member Carboni clarified that it is not a scrolling sign, which Mr. Latsko agreed with. Chairman Moloughney commented that the City wants to minimize signage and not clutter the landscape. However, the decision rests with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) whether to grant a variance and permit the sign. The Planning Board determines the look of the sign if the ZBA approves the sign. Chairman Moloughney prefers the single static sign rather than the two signs, but he is open to discussion. The Chairman distinguishes Capital Communications sign since the building itself is below 787. He emphasized the need to consider the fine line because other businesses will want similar signage. Member Gariepy pointed out that the proposed sign is the same size as that for Capital Communications. Chairman Moloughney indicated Cap Com’s is smaller because it is on one pole. He also added that the sign permit will cover all three signs: two on the building and the stand alone sign. Therefore he would prefer to eliminate the LED board. Member DeFruscio asked the purpose of the LED sign. Ms. Commanda replied that the message board will provide information, education, community messages and list promotions. Mr. Latsko added that as a gateway to Cohoes the HRCU thought it would be nice looking. Member Gariepy admitted that one sign would look cleaner, however given the sizes of the signs she finds the LED a reasonable request. Member DeFruscio commented that removing the LED sign eliminates the functionality of the sign. Member Gariepy made a motion to declare lead agency status for the SEQR review of the site plan. Member DeFruscio seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio X Member DeFruscio made a motion to make a negative declaration for SEQR purposes. Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio Vice Chairman Badgley made a motion to approve the site plan conditioned on the ZBA granting a variance. Member Carboni seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed 4 to 1. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio X CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO A SITE PLAN AT WATERSIDE APARTMENTS Jim Finning owns Waterside Apartments on Dyke Avenue. He submitted an amended site plan to account for a 40’ berm placed adjacent to land owned by Kelman’s Scrap Yard east of Wood Street. Mr. Finning pointed out that the surveyors erroneously placed the 50’ setback marker. As a result he could not build the garage proposed in the original site plan. Instead, he used the area as storage for soil, asphalt and concrete torn up on site. Eventually he found that the berm made a good buffer from the noise, odor and sounds from Kelman’s Scrap Yard. Member Gariepy asked if the proposed garage wouldn’t be sightlier than the berm. Member DeFruscio recalled specifically discussing the garage placement during the original site plan review. He asked why the berm had been placed instead of the garage. Mr. Finning reiterated that the plans called for a placement that turned out to be too close to disputed land boundaries. Member Carboni suggested that he alter the garage design. Mr. Finning indicated that it would be expensive and not in his best interest since he realizes now that the garage would not have been an adequate buffer between the uses. He takes full responsibility for the cost of buffering the apartments from the Kelman’s Scrap Yard, but thinks that a berm with trees will do a better job. Member DeFruscio asked about the walkway required in the original site plan. Mr. Finning indicated that the residents cannot enter Army Corps of Engineer lands anyway. Only 2nd and 3rd story residents can enjoy the view of the waterfront. Member Gariepy pointed out that the walkway was for the enjoyment of residents, not access to Army Corps lands. Member Gariepy asked what the berm would look like. Mr. Finning proposes placing a fence and trees along the top. Member Carboni commented that only weeds grow on the berm now. He expressed concern about erosion and sediment control. Chairman Moloughney stated that the Board could not vote on the item at this month’s meeting since the members received the submission so late. In addition, members would like to see a landscaping plan and details. Mr. Finning agreed to provide the Board with additional details. He explained that he wanted to gauge whether the Board would be amenable to keeping the berm before spending money on landscaping plans. Chairman Moloughney also asked what size the garage would have been. Mr. Finning indicated the garage would have been 26’ high. The berm is the same height. Therefore, Mr. Finning wants to place a 12’ fence and evergreen trees on top of the berm to further buffer the noise, odor and sounds. Chairman Moloughney indicated he understood what Mr. Finning wanted to accomplish. Member DeFruscio asked what materials are in the berm. Mr. Finning answered that the berm has some asphalt but is mostly clean fill from the site and from off-site. Chairman Moloughney indicated that he wanted revision of the stormwater calculations. He then added that the amended plan would need planning board engineer review at the developer’s expense. John Henry, attorney for the Kelman’s, asked that the Board not approve the site plan “as is.” He claimed that the berm encroaches on the Kelman’s property. He also requested an engineered solution as well as slope stabilization and content analysis. Finally, he demanded the slope be cut back, the retaining wall fixed and appropriate seeding on the berm. Ms. Ashline-Heil pointed out that the parties have an ongoing property dispute that was before the courts. Mr. Finning claimed the Kelmans never provided the promised survey. Mr. Henry claimed that the survey was provided to Finning’s attorney, Peter Lynch. Chairman Moloughney interceded and advised that the Board would need a copy of the survey and a resolution to the matter before a decision could be made. Member Gariepy asked if the Planner would provide minutes from the meeting the Planning Board originally approved the development. Mr. Henry indicated the original approval date was August 7th of 2006. Chairman Moloughney also asked the Planner to provide feedback from the Corporation Counsel on where the paper street discontinuance stands. Vice Chairman Badgley made a motion to adjourn at 7:30pm. Member Gariepy seconded the motion. Roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Joseph Moloughney X Leo Badgley X Edward Carboni X Sharon Gariepy X Mark DeFruscio X